Cross Culture Work: Practices of Collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion Program

Cross Culture Work:

Practices of Collaboration in the Panama Canal

Expansion Program

Reading committee: Prof.dr. Stewart Clegg University of Technology Sydney Prof.dr. Joop Koppenjan Erasmus University Rotterdam Prof.dr. Marcel Hertogh Delft University of Technology Prof.dr. Halleh Gorashi VU University Amsterdam Prof.dr. Jaap de Heer VU University Amsterdam

ISBN/EAN: 978-90-79787-49-4 NUR: 762

Published and distributed by: Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands Phone: +31 15 273 2564 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.nextgenerationinfrastructures.eu

This research was funded by the Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation.

This is a work of science. Although copyright remains with the author, you are encouraged to use this work, copy it, store it, print it, distribute it and build upon it, as long as you attribute it (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).

Cover by Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation and Daniela Cerdio Photos by ACP and Karen Smits

Lay-out and printed by Gildeprint Drukkerijen, Enschede, The Netherlands

The electronic version of this thesis can be found at: http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/ VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT

Cross Culture Work:

Practices of Collaboration in the Panama Canal

Expansion Program

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr. F.A. van der Duyn Schouten, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen op dinsdag 25 juni 2013 om 11.45 uur in de aula van de universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105

door

Karen Cornelia Maria Smits

geboren te ‘s-Hertogenbosch promotoren: prof.dr. M.B. Veenswijk prof.dr. A.H. van Marrewijk Acknowledgements

Working together is often a complex undertaking. It is through collaboration, however, that we can combine our knowledge, skills and experiences to create and develop magnificent projects. The same goes for this Ph.D. project. I have been privileged to work with wonderfully inspiring people and here, at the beginning of this book, I would like to express my gratitude.

First and foremost, my appreciation goes to my promotors Alfons van Marrewijk and Marcel Veenswijk. This research project shows the result of our teamwork. Alfons and Marcel strongly believed in this project, allowed me to explore the academic jungle and helped me to find the path when I was completely lost. Marcel, I couldn’t have succeeded without your analytical eye, and Alfons, your stimulating talks and fascinating experiences helped me immensely throughout this project. You both supported me all along and I hope that we continue working together on fascinating projects.

Thanks and appreciation also go to the members of the reading committee, who devoted time and energy to review the manuscript and provided me with constructive comments: Steward Clegg, Halleh Gorashi, Jaap de Heer, Marcel den Hertogh en Joop Koppejan.

I owe a special debt of gratitude to Carel Roessingh. From the moment I stepped into his classroom he has been inspiring and encouraging. He always triggered my curiosity, opened doors for me and I believe his mentorship turned into a genuine friendship. You have taught me so much.

All project participants in the Panama Canal Expansion Program, as well as practitioners from other projects with whom I could discuss my findings, deserve my sincere gratitude for allowing me into their work life and sharing their experiences and thoughts with me. Especially Jorge Quijano, Ilya Marotta, Jan Kop, Carlos Fabrega and Joe Cazares for giving me the opportunity to study the project organization from all angles. And thank you to those friends in Panama who taught me about their culture and made the fieldwork period an unforgettable time in life: Blanca, Karina, Yafá, Marco, Roberto, Davy and Pim.

Of course, a heartfelt appreciation goes to my colleagues. The former department of Culture, Organization and Management, currently the department of Organization Sciences at VU University, offered me a professional work environment where someone was always available for advice. Thank you very much! Sierk deserves to be mentioned here for his intellectual support and creativity with regard to the book title, Hanneke and Myrte, for guiding me through the academic life, Elles and Welmoed, for their administrative support, and the members of the PhD Club for fierce debates, inspirational feedback on my work and for sharing their work with me. Special thanks to fellow Ph.D.’s Martijn, Kalpana, Nicole, Sander, Anne, Dhoya, Leonore, Maya, Gea, Silvia, Michiel, Leonie. And to Femke, for comradeship, bearing the brunt of frustrations and celebrating each small step completed towards finalizing this book. I thank you!

My friends Roos, Heather, Jaap, Hanneke and Steve came to visit me in Panama. Thank you for the wonderful adventures we had. It was amazing that I could give you a peek into my fieldwork life and I enjoy that we share those experiences. Heather, I’m very grateful for your editing work on the manuscript!

I want to say thank you in the biggest way to my friends, who were sources of laughter, joy and support during this Ph.D. project. My paranymphs each represent a group of friends in my life. Lot van Brakel symbolizes my friends in Amsterdam, especially Maud, Eva, Roos, Bregje, Chris and Chris. We all met at this university and the friendship we have built from here always fills me with happiness. Karin Schoones stands for my friends in Brabant: Gera, Danique, Marianne, Joris and Bas. You have known me for such a long time and never forget how to put a smile on my face. Dear friends, you mean the world to me! No words can express nor any act of gratitude can relay what the love and support from my family means to me. Marij, you visited me twice in Panama and those memories will stay with me forever. Sanne and Toon, the many emails, post cards and text messages were highly appreciated. Mum and Dad, you support me in every step I take. I owe you everything and I hope that this work makes you proud. Despite the geographical distance between us, dear family, you will always be close to me.

And finally, Adolfo. Meeting you has been one of the many amazing things that made this project so special. Although at times there was an ocean between us, we were courageous and proved that our love is strong. Your encouragement helped me in finalizing this project and I know you will support all of my future projects. Schatje, I thank you so much for sharing life with me.

Before starting this adventure, I was often warned that it would be a lonely process at times. Indeed, there were many things I had to do by my self, but honestly, I never felt alone; you were all there to support me. This book is a result of a collaborative process, in which each of you participated in your own way, and I’m grateful for your contribution. Nevertheless, it needs to be said that all responsibility for the following, and for any error you might find, is mine.

Karen Smits

Table of Contents

List of Tables and Figures List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Chapter 1. Introducing the Field 15 Visiting the Panama Canal 16 Mega projects 18 Cross-Cultural Collaboration 21 Problem Statement and Outline 25

PART I: GOING TO THE FIELD

Chapter 2. Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects 33 Introduction 34 Developments in Project Management Research 34 The Practice Turn in Project Management Research 39 Projects-as-Practice 45 Cross-Cultural Collaboration and Project Management 48 Cross-Cultural Management Research 52 To Conclude 56

Chapter 3. Ethnography in Practice 59 Knowledge Claim 60 Organizational Ethnography 63 Selection of and Access to a Mega Project 66 Obtaining Access 69 Ethnography in the Field 71 Interviewing 75 Observing 77 Reading 80 Analyzing and Writing 82 About me: the researcher 87 Chapter 4. The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward 93 Introduction 94 History of the Panama Canal 95 The French Attempt 96 The American Victory 97 Ownership of the Canal 101 Panama Canal Operations 104 Autoridad del Canal de Panamá 107 Panama Canal Expansion Program 109 Components of the Panama Canal Expansion Program 112 The Third Set of Locks Project: ACP and its Partners 115 CH2M Hill 116 Sacyr 117 Impregilo 117 Jan de Nul 118 CUSA 118 GUPC 119 Registered Trade Mark 121

PART II: KNOWING THE FIELD

Interlude. Setting the stage for collaboration 127 The Award Ceremony for the Third Set of Locks Project 128 The day after… 135

Chapter 5. Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration 139 Introduction 140 Using Metaphors 140 Process metaphor: ‘it’s like a war’ 141 Process metaphor: Arranged marriage 143 Process metaphor: Climbing the mountain 144 Project metaphor: Animals 145 Project metaphor: Governmental institution 147 Labeling Cultures 148 National Culture Label 149 Organization Culture Label 155 Marking Boundaries 162 One Expansion Program, two projects: Atlantic versus Pacific 162 Two projects, three locations: Gatún, Cocolí, Corozal Oeste 165 Searching for structure 171 Discussion: Diminishers of Collaboration 175

Chapter 6. Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices 177 Introduction 178 Sharing interests 178 Passion for profession 179 Following the Mantra ‘the work needs to be done’ 181 Bridging Actors 183 Saint Judas Thaddeus 184 Fire Fighter 186 Mediator 188 Cross-cultural code-switching 190 Linguistic code-switching 191 Behavioral code-switching 194 Organizing Social Activities 200 Discussion: Amplifiers of Collaboration 203

Chapter 7. Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill 205 Introduction 206 How they met… 206 The tender 208 Shaping their relationship 210 Chaperoning 214 Experiences with chaperoning 216 ‘One Team, One Mission’ 220 Collaboration in Practice 222 ‘It just does not work that way in the ACP’ 223 ‘Where would I be without you?’ 225 ‘We are the Shadow of CH2M Hill’ 228 Discussion 232

PART III: LEARNING FROM THE FIELD

Chapter 8. Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth 237 Project Actuality 239 A Collaboration Labyrinth 241 Practices of Collaboration 245 Manifest practices 247 Concealed Practices 252 The Collaboration Continuum 259 ABC-practices 260 Contribution to the Academic Debates 264 Ideas for Future Research 267 Dear Project Participant, 269 Partners 269 Possibilities 270 Patience 271 Philosophy 272 Promotion 273

English Summary 276 Dutch Summary 279 Spanish Summary 299 Appendix 1 319 References 321 About the author 337 NGInfra PhD Thesis Series on Infrastructures 339 List of Tables and Figures

Tables 3.1 Short-list of mega projects 67 3.2 Overview of presence in the research field 72 3.3 Amount of interviews per organization 76 3.4 Type of documents per organization 80 I.1 Total score for tender consortiums in Third Set of Locks Project 134 5.1 Spatial setting of the GUPC project offices 171 6.1 Bridging actors 190 7.1 Common versus chaperone practices in Program Management 233 8.1 Manifest practices in the Panama Canal Expansion Program 252 8.2 Concealed practices in the Panama Canal Expansion Program 258 8.3 ABC-practices 264

Figures 3.1 Final research cases 84 4.1 Map of Panama 95 4.2 Panama Canal profile 105 4.3 Components of the Panama Canal Expansion Program 113 4.4 Measurements of the locks 114 4.5 Explanation water-saving system 115 4.6 Partners in the Third Set of Locks Project 120 7.1 Description of tasks in program management services for Engineer 212 8.1 The Collabyrinth 247 8.2 The Collaboration Continuum 262 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACP Autoridad del Canal de Panamá / Panama Canal Authority CUSA Constructora Urbana Sociedad Anónima GUPC Grupo Unidos por el Canal / United Group for the Canal Impregilo Impregilo Group Jan de Nul Jan de Nul Group PCC Panama Canal Company PM Program Manager RWS Rijkswaterstaat / Dutch Ministry of Public Works and Water management Sacyr Sacyr Vallehermoso Group United States United States of America WMT Works Management Team

Chapter 1

Introducing the Field Chapter 1

R1 Visiting the Panama Canal

R3 Wow! The massive and large entrance of the Centro de Visitantes de Miraflores (Miraflores Visitors Center) blows me away. Seen from far away, this grotesque R5 building marks the importance of the Panama Canal for Panama. I have been in R6 Panama for two days now and I have seen ships passing through the country as R7 if they are big trucks driving slowly on a jungle road. Just like any other tourist in R8 Panama, I visit the museum that is built around the Panama Canal locks and located R9 close to the city: Miraflores Locks. R10 Long, steep stairs, or an escalator, lead towards the entrance of the building R11 where the ticket officer charges me eight Balboa (or US dollar, these currencies are R12 equal) for a full entrance ticket for foreigners. Upon entrance of the building a cold R13 air gives me goose bumps while the security guard guides me through a detector and R14 checks my purse. A guide is waiting for me, or so it seems, to explain the route in the R15 museum. With a thick American accent she urges me to go to the observation deck R16 immediately, because a ship is passing through the locks right now. I can see the rest R17 of the museum, four exhibitions and a documentary, later. Following her advice, and R18 many other tourists, I take an elevator up to the fourth floor. When I step outside, a R19 blanket of moist air embraces me. The temperature and humidity are high. The sun R20 is burning on my face. The observation deck is filled with people, all leaning over R21 the banisters to see as much as possible of the canal and the ship passing through. R22 The view is incredible. The Panama Canal is right in front of me. I can see the Pacific R23 entrance to the canal on my left hand side and on my right hand side, far away, I R24 recognize the Pedro Miguel Locks. In front of me, and in between two water lanes, R25 and odd looking, seemingly small, white building reveals that these locks were built R26 in 1913. Constructed such a long time ago; it still appears to be in perfect state! R27 Through speakers I hear the voice of a guide named ‘Kennedy’, giving information R28 about the ship that is passing through the lock gates at the moment. I notice he R29 speaks in American English first and then pronounces the same information in R30 Spanish. The vessel entering the locks at the moment is called Petrel Arrow Naussau R31 and carries the flag of the Bahamas. The cargo ship came from the Atlantic Ocean R32 and is passing through the canal to reach the Pacific Ocean. While the boat enters R33 R34

16 Introducing the Field

the second lock gate, Kennedy explains that, with an average of 35 to 40 vessels a R1 day, it is mostly container vessels that pass through the Panama Canal. “Apart from R2 the administrative process beforehand, a transit through the Panama Canal takes R3 about 8 to 10 hours,” he states. Kennedy needs to interrupt his story to announce R4 that a documentary video will be shown in English in a few minutes, if you have a R5 full entrance pass, you can go to the theatre on the ground floor. Like most tourists R6 on the observation deck, I decide to stay. Quickly, Kennedy continues by informing R7 that, with each vessel passage approximately 52 million gallons (that’s about 197 R8 million liters) of fresh water goes in the ocean. This water comes from three different R9 lakes that store Panama’s rainwater. None of the water is recycled, because during R10 the nine months of the rainy season sufficient water remains in the lakes to operate R11 the Canal year-round. R12 The vessel is connected to what Kennedy calls ‘mules’, little locomotives. “These R13 are not here to pull the ship, just to make sure it is centered,” assures Kennedy. He R14 also explains that each locomotive weighs about fifty tons, costs about 2 million US R15 dollars, runs on electricity and is designed by the Mitsubishi company. Kennedy gives R16 further detailed information, but my attention is drawn to the operation of the locks. R17 The lock releases its water and the vessel slowly moves further down in the lock. It is a R18 funny sight: it seems like the vessel disappears in the ground. When the boat is at the R19 lowest level, a bell rings to signal that the lock gates will be opened. Gradually, both R20 doors open. They look very heavy and strong, which they must be if they can hold R21 52 gallons of water and carry the weight of a full cargo ship. Using its own power, R22 the vessel moves to the next lock gate, where, applying the same routine, the ship R23 is lowered to ocean level and released to continue his journey in the Pacific Ocean. R24 While Petrel Arrow Nassau leaves this highly traveled waterway behind, I’m still R25 standing on the observation deck. Amazed by all there is to see: the waters of the R26 Panama Canal, the hundred year old locks that still function perfectly and the immense R27 size of the vessel, I can only imagine how many people are directly connected with R28 the operations of the Panama Canal on a daily basis. Also, it strikes me that English R29 and Spanish are strongly interwoven in the Panama Canal. The guide spoke in English R30 before translating his text to Spanish, Panama’s mother tongue, all signs were both R31 in English and in Spanish and the American currency and measurement units were R32 R33 R34

17 Chapter 1

R1 used to indicate an amount or size. Of course, this is a tourist location in Panama, but American heritage is highly visible. Now the water lanes are empty, I notice that R3 construction is going on at the other side of the canal: the Panama Canal is going to be expanded! (Fieldnotes, July 2009) R5 R6 This fragment, derived from my research journal, marks the beginning of the fieldwork R7 period for this study. A visit to the Miraflores Locks is a must-see when in Panama, and R8 for me it was the first introduction to what was going to be my daily workplace for R9 the year to come. Now, I use this fragment to introduce another large undertaking: R10 an academic study on cross-cultural collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion R11 Program. In this book I will, similar to the passage portrayed above, use fragments R12 from observations and quotes from interviews to portray the everyday work life of R13 project participants. For an entire year I was present in the daily operations of this R14 mega project. I had the opportunity to gather the data for this study by observing R15 numerous work activities, interviewing many employees and participating in a wide R16 variety of events. The aim of the research was to understand how actors make sense R17 of collaboration when operating in a culturally complex project organization. R18 R19 Mega projects R20 R21 Among the Channel Tunnel connecting the United Kingdom with France, the Empire R22 State Building that once was the tallest building in the world and the Dutch Delta R23 Works protecting the country from floods, the American Society of Civil Engineers R24 listed the Panama Canal as one of the seven wonders of the modern world1. From R25 these seven, the Panama Canal is not only the oldest, but also the mega project that R26 needed the most years (34) to complete construction. In 1880, French engineers R27 started to build a water passage across Panama. Nine years later their effort ended R28 in failure as a result of mismanagement, devastating diseases, financial problems, R29 and engineering mistakes (Greene, 2009). In 1904, the United States took over and, R30 led by Theodore Roosevelt, breakthroughs in medicine, science, technology and R31 engineering supported the United States to finish a spectacular piece of construction. R32 The opening of the canal, on August 15, 1914, was history’s greatest engineering R33 1 American Society of Civil Engineers, www.asce.org (last visited, October 8, 2012). R34

18 Introducing the Field

marvel and a victory of man over nature that would not be matched until the moon R1 landings (Parker, 2009). R2 Serving as milestones in mankind’s development, national triumphs and technical R3 advances, mega projects are a ubiquitous part of our everyday life. However, the R4 construction processes of these mega projects often fail to meet expectations as they R5 suffer from cost overruns, delays, and deficit in terms of quality and user satisfaction R6 (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, & Rothengatter, 2003; Van Marrewijk R7 & Veenswijk, 2006). In the building of the Panama Canal, the French had to deal with R8 an earthquake, fires, floods, epidemics of yellow fever and malaria, and, additionally, R9 they had insufficient funds, faced a huge amount of corruption and lacked the R10 engineering knowledge to finalize the endeavor (Greene, 2009; McCullough, 1977; R11 Parker, 2009). In 1889, the French attempt came to a tragic ending after more than a R12 billion francs -about US$ 287 million- had been spent and accidents and diseases had R13 claimed over twenty thousand lives (Greene, 2009; McCullough, 1977). In contrary R14 to these disappointing numbers, the Americans constructed the Panama Canal years R15 later within time and under budget. In a period of ten years, the construction project R16 was finalized six months ahead of schedule with a final price of US$ 352 million, R17 which was US$ 23 million below the estimated costs (McCullough, 1977). R18 Since the opening of the Panama Canal, in 1914, numerous other mega R19 projects around the world have been constructed, but many projects complete with R20 less positive numbers than the Panama Canal construction. Often, these projects R21 experience issues with regard to realizing on time, in budget and to scope. In R22 Amsterdam, for instance, the construction of a new metro line was budgeted at R23 € 1.4 billion and scheduled for completion in 2011. Severe technical problems as R24 well as administrative difficulties obstructed these plans. Recent figures show that R25 costs have already reached € 3.1 billion and the year for expected conclusion is now R26 2017 (Soetenhorst, 2011). Also the Boston Central Artery/Tunnel Project, commonly R27 known as the ‘Big Dig’, became known for its cost increases and time inflations. R28 Initially budgeted at a cost of US$ 2.56 billion, the project costs increased up to R29 US$ 14.8 billion, more than five times the original estimate (Greiman, 2010). For R30 both projects, and these are merely examples of many other contemporary mega R31 projects, the public expressed concerns of the affordability and efficiency of these R32 R33 R34

19 Chapter 1

R1 undertakings and some parties suggested to cease the construction. In Amsterdam, the municipality has been held responsible for the problems in implementation of R3 the metro line and the alderman in charge had to resign. Such a social impact is typical for megaprojects, which can be characterized by their large scale, the long R5 development process and the high number of participants. Other common features R6 are the high-risk technological innovation, its economic and environmental impact, R7 and the large capital needed to realize the entity (Pitsis, Clegg, Marosszeky, & Rura- R8 Polley, 2003; Van Marrewijk, 2007; Warrack, 1993). R9 The problematic performance of infrastructure projects has attracted academic R10 attention (see for example Clegg, Pitsis, Rura-Polley, & Marosszeky, 2002; Cooke- R11 Davies, 2002; Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Van Marrewijk, Clegg, Pitsis, & Veenswijk, R12 2008; Warrack, 1993). While these studies mainly concentrate on themes such as R13 policy making, contracting, expected outcomes, risks and project performance, it R14 appears that both academics and practitioners feel the need for more insight into R15 the ‘people’ side of project management (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Van Marrewijk et al., R16 2008). Although traditional research on projects and the management of projects R17 continues to be devoted to upgrading project performance through social factors, R18 an exception is found in Pryke and Smith’s relationship approach, focusing on “(…) R19 the way in which relationships between people, between people and firms, and R20 between firms as project actors can be managed” (Pryke & Smyth, 2006:21). They R21 state that collaboration between people has a significant and prominent effect on R22 project success. Others acknowledge this statement, arguing that the quality of R23 relationships is a key factor in successful project outcomes (Bresnen & Marshall, R24 2002; Pitsis, Kornberger, & Clegg, 2004). Hence, megaprojects can be perceived as R25 complex social settings due to likely tensions regarding unpredictability, control, and R26 interaction between project partners (Bresnen, Goussevskaia, & Swan, 2005a; Cicmil, R27 Williams, Thomas, & Hodgson, 2006). Furthermore, mega projects always require a R28 combination of skills, knowledge and resources that are organizationally dispersed. R29 Therefore, an important trait of mega projects is the diverse cultural background of R30 its participants. R31 R32 R33 R34

20 Introducing the Field

Cross-Cultural Collaboration R1 R2 Collaboration between different partners such as public administrators, construction R3 companies, engineers and subcontractors is considered a critical factor for R4 successful project outcomes (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Van R5 Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). These partners all retain their own values and work R6 practices composed by their country of residence, sector and profession, which can R7 deeply affect collaboration. In line with this, when people participate in a project R8 organization, their identities are still deeply embedded in their home organizations, R9 their profession and other groups that they dwell from in their life (Sackmann & R10 Friesl, 2007). Consequently, numerous cultural differences and similarities, as well as R11 distinctive practices and differing values and interests for participation, emerge when R12 firms and people come together in a project organization. R13 The field of research on culture has long been influenced by frameworks R14 portraying the differences in practices and preferences between countries on a R15 national level of analysis and how these frameworks enable comparisons between R16 countries (Primecz, Romani, & Sackmann, 2011). Culture, however, cannot be R17 implicitly defined in terms of nationality, nor can such frameworks predict or describe R18 what happens when people actually come together, interact and collaborate with R19 each other (Primecz et al., 2011). Assuming that all inhabitants in one nation and all R20 managers and employees in an organization share the same cultural values would R21 ignore significant themes as social variation, diversity and power relations among R22 or between nations and organizations (Søderberg & Holden, 2002). Accordingly, R23 such an a-contextual and a-political understanding of culture, as has been followed R24 by the dominant approach in cross-cultural research, fails to see the processes of R25 culture construction and distinction drawing (Ybema & Byun, 2009). Recognizing R26 that characteristics of national cultures alone are insufficient for understanding how R27 organizational actors draw upon and deploy cultural differences and similarities in R28 their everyday work practices, several scholars included a tradition of interpretative R29 research in cross-cultural management studies (Boyacigiller, Kleinberg, Philips, & R30 Sackmann, 2004). Instead of comparing cultural aspects, these scholars are interested R31 in cultural interaction and the impact of culture on the organizational life (Sackmann R32 R33 R34

21 Chapter 1

R1 & Philips, 2004). An additional stream in this research field aims at unraveling the insiders’ perspective to understand how actors socially construct their everyday R3 work life, while taking into account the complexities, contradictions and paradoxes that cultural realities mean for individuals, groups and organizations (Sackmann & R5 Philips, 2004). As such, the field on culture research is moving towards perceiving R6 organizations as a multiplicity of cultures in which members develop a shared set of R7 assumptions within the organization setting, but, at the same time, carry various sets R8 of assumptions acquired outside the organization (Boyacigiller et al., 2004). Hence, R9 recent research efforts in this field of study view culture as something that is emerging R10 from interactions among people while they make sense of the context in which they R11 live and work (e.g. Mahadevan, 2012; Mayer & Louw, 2012; Van Marrewijk, 2010b; R12 Ybema & Byun, 2009). R13 In the daily practice of mega projects, actors continuously translate and negotiate R14 their values, practices and interests. Project participants translate social debates R15 and abstract notions of public values into their own idiosyncratic interpretations R16 and priorities for certain values change over time (Veeneman, Dicke, & De Bruijne, R17 2009). Generally, public values are the outcome of political debate and negotiation R18 processes between public administrators, private organizations, interest groups, R19 experts or executive agencies engaged in or affected by a policy of public service R20 (Charles, Dicke, Koppenjan, & Ryan, 2007; Van Gestel, Koppenjan, Schrijver, Van R21 de ven, & Veeneman, 2008). Examples of public values are affordability, efficiency, R22 transparency, accountability, reliability and effectiveness. Veeneman et al. (2009) R23 portray public values as relatively abstract terms that change towards more concrete R24 goals in the stages of the decision-making processes. In other words, public values are R25 not perceived as static, but rather as dynamic concepts that may change over time. R26 Furthermore, public values are not considered to be universal, but dependent on R27 context (Charles et al., 2007). In the academic debate on safeguarding public values, R28 much attention has been given to the top-down implementation of public values R29 (Beck Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007; De Bruijn & Dicke, 2006; Van Gestel et al., 2008; R30 Veeneman et al., 2009). Interestingly, Van der Wal (2008) identified the differences R31 and similarities between values in public and private organizations and found that R32 problems as a result of conflicting values seldom occur. Nevertheless, his study reveals R33 R34

22 Introducing the Field

that it is still unclear what happens when organizations and individuals are explicitly R1 confronted with differences and similarities between their respective interpretations R2 of values. Moreover, little attention is paid to how public values are translated and R3 negotiated in the process of collaboration where an abundance of cultures, but also R4 a wide variety of ideas, and interests and expectations come together (Boyacigiller et R5 al., 2004; Huxham, 1996). R6 Taking these developments into account, this study seeks to explore how project R7 participants collaborate in mega projects. From a bottom-up approach it focuses on R8 how project participants enact public values in their daily work environment. Since R9 this includes studying the project participants’ everyday organizational life, at the R10 micro level, explicit attention is paid to the practices of collaboration. Emphasizing R11 on action and interaction, on the details of work, research on practices examines R12 the internal dynamics in the organization and is interested in what people actually R13 do and say (Barley & Kunda, 2001; Nicolini, Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003a). In line with R14 Nicolini et al (2003a), practices are perceived as ways of action that are relational, R15 mediated by artifacts and always rooted in a context of interaction. A practice is R16 comprised of three features: (1) it involves the cooperative effort of human beings R17 and is extended in time and bounded by rules, (2) every practice entails a set of R18 ‘internal goods’: outcomes that can only be achieved by practicing in the practice R19 itself, and (3) joining and participating in a practice involves trying to achieve the R20 standards of excellence that count in the practice at that time (Yanow & Tsoukas, R21 2009). The interaction between actors leads to practices that sustain collaboration. R22 Gherardi notes: “participation in a practice entails taking part of a professional R23 language game, mastering the rules and being able to use them” (Gherardi, 2000: R24 216). Geiger (2009) stresses that practicing is not an individual cognitive resource, R25 but rather something that people do together. Moreover, he verifies that practicing R26 is a process of continuous enactment, refinement, reproduction and change based R27 on tacitly shared understandings within the practicing community (Geiger, 2009). For R28 Nicolini et al. (2003), practices are a bricolage of material, mental, social and cultural R29 resources. To make sense of a practice, actors need to unravel the phenomena R30 out of the undifferentiated flux or raw experiences and conceptually fix and label R31 it, so that the practice can become a shared understanding for communicational R32 R33 R34

23 Chapter 1

R1 exchanges (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). In a short period of freeze, which is called bracketing, practices are iteratively developed because actors instinctively R3 apply their tacit knowledge and prior experiences to the flow of interactions (Weick et al., 2005). Engaging in reflection-in-action, actors try to coherently accommodate R5 new understandings (Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). Gradually, their routine practices R6 then change, extend and provide opportunities for further changes (Tsoukas & R7 Chia, 2010). Essentially, practices reproduce norms and values, but in the process R8 of translation and negotiation, new practices are generated (Geiger, 2009). As R9 such, when collaborating in a cultural complex work environment, like the project R10 organization, actors shape and reshape their cultures, values and practices to make R11 sense of their everyday work environment. R12 As this study’s focal point is to gain an insiders’ perspective and understand how R13 project participants make sense of collaboration in their daily work, thus, aiming to R14 focus on the micro level of the project organization, an ethnographic approach is most R15 suitable. This anthropological approach is based on close contact with the everyday R16 life of a studied society or group for a fairly long period of time, concentrating on R17 cultural issues such as shared meanings, common practices and mutual symbols R18 (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010). In organizational settings, the anthropological R19 approach can be useful to investigate lived experiences and to understand formal R20 and informal dynamics (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992). The researcher engages with R21 what people do and how they talk about what they do without losing sight of their R22 organizational context and how they make sense of this context (Ybema, Yanow, R23 Wels, & Kamsteeg, 2009). As an ethnographer, I gathered a myriad of voices from R24 inside the organization by observing, interviewing and participating in the project. R25 Instead of delivering an aerial picture taken from the outside, I could portray a R26 detailed picture of what actually happens in the project organization. In the third R27 chapter of this book I will further elaborate on the methodological design of this R28 research. At this moment, I would like to emphasize that this study does not seek to R29 relate the effect of collaboration to the outcome of a project, nor does it start with R30 theory abstracted from action, it rather takes a more inductive approach to research R31 that focuses on the way in which practices are translated, negotiated and initiated in R32 the daily work life of organizational actors. R33 R34

24 Introducing the Field

This research is part of the Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation (NGInfra) R1 that represents a large international consortium of knowledge institutions, market R2 players and governmental bodies aiming to improve our vital infrastructures. As part R3 of the theme Public Values, the project ‘Cultural Change in the Infrastructural sector’ R4 addresses the necessity from both public and private parties to develop “new forms R5 of efficient and effective cooperation between parties with very different cultures in R6 highly complex environments such as large construction projects” (NGInfra, 2012). R7 This study is an essential element of an extensive research project that is initiated to R8 investigate the possibilities to meet this goal. R9 R10 Problem Statement and Outline R11 R12 Following the disasters and crises that occurred in many mega projects, of which R13 the Amsterdam Metro Line and the ‘Big Dig’ are just but a few examples, and in R14 addition to the existing body of literature in project management, both academics R15 and practitioners express the need to obtain a better understanding of the everyday R16 practices of project participants. Underscoring this demand, Söderlund (2004) R17 recognizes that limited interest is paid to the actual work practices and performance of R18 project members and he calls for more in-depth studies on the role, style and function R19 of project management. Furthermore, Bresnen et al. (2005a) take the request a step R20 further by arguing that the critical social science perspective needs to be incorporated R21 in project management research. They suggest to seek for understanding of project R22 organization and project management itself, rather than for the impact that social R23 factors have on project outcomes (Bresnen et al., 2005a). Accordingly, Cicmil and R24 Hodgson (2006) express the need to explore how the relationship between individuals R25 and collectivities are being produced and reproduced, and how power relations R26 create and sustain social reality in projects. Their research group proposes a focus on R27 the ‘actuality’ in project organizations and suggests to strive for the lived experiences R28 of its participants (Cicmil et al., 2006). What is more, the notion that mega projects R29 involve a high number of participants residing from various organizations, each R30 bringing their own idiosyncratic practices to the project, requires a focus on cross- R31 cultural collaboration. In fact, it is striking that in the environment of executing mega R32 R33 R34

25 Chapter 1

R1 projects, where collaboration is essential, little attention is paid to how collaboration comes about, what can affect the collaboration and how a collaborative relationship R3 could be enhanced. As such, it makes for an interesting and relevant topic to study the practices of collaboration in a mega project. R5 This study offers a deeper insight into cultural complexity of collaboration in a R6 mega project and provides a better understanding of how collaboration between R7 project participants becomes established. It argues that, to understand how project R8 participants make sense of the cultural differences and similarities they encounter R9 in their work environment, it is useful to look at how actors translate and negotiate R10 practices, (public) values and interests. Studying the project participants’ everyday R11 organizational life in the Panama Canal Expansion Program will provide insight into R12 the practices of collaboration that emerge in their cultural complex work environment. R13 The objective of this study is to illustrate the internal dynamics between participants R14 within a project organization, and how this affects collaboration in a mega project. R15 This objective is translated into the following central research question: R16 R17 How does collaboration manifest itself in the daily practices of project participants R18 in the Panama Canal Expansion Program? R19 R20 As mentioned, the majority of studies on projects and the management of projects R21 focus on tools and techniques to enhance project performance and seek to R22 understand projects from a macro approach. They aim to develop ‘best practices’ R23 and contingency models to improve project outcomes. Minimal academic attention R24 is paid to the implications of the nature of a project organization, in which people R25 from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds come together, and how these actors R26 deal with the complex work environment on a micro level. As such, this research will R27 focus on the following aspects. In the first place, this study will explore how these R28 academic concepts are discussed in contemporary debates. Second, this study will R29 focus on project participants at different levels of the project organization (such as R30 management, operational staff, stakeholders, media, etc.) and the way they make R31 sense of the cultural differences and similarities they encounter in the Panama Canal R32 Expansion Program. This will lead to the identification of the practices of collaboration R33 R34

26 Introducing the Field

that the organizational actors across different levels within the project organization R1 translate, negotiate and, perhaps, initiate. Finally, I will elucidate the cultural dynamics R2 that appear in the everyday work life of the project participants. These aims can be R3 translated into the following four sub questions: R4 R5 1. How are project management, cross-cultural collaboration and practices R6 debated in the current academic literature? R7 2. How do actors make sense of the cultural complexity in their everyday R8 practices? R9 3. What kind of practices of collaboration can be identified in the Panama R10 Canal Expansion Program? R11 4. How can we explain the cultural dynamics that appear in the project R12 organization? R13 R14 Encouraged by the high impact of mega projects on society and the fact that more R15 scholars indicate cultural differences as a cause of project failure (e.g. Bresnen & R16 Marshall, 2002; Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006), this research provides more R17 insight into the cultural dynamics of the Panama Canal Expansion Program. Mega R18 projects are considered as complex social settings, and in recent years themes as policy R19 making, contracting, risks and expected outcomes have been studied extensively R20 (see for example Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Warrack, 1993). Following the demand to R21 gain academic insight into the cultural aspects in mega projects there is a quest for R22 empirical studies on the actors’ practices and understandings in projects (Bresnen R23 & Marshall, 2002; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Söderlund, 2004). It is in this area, the R24 actuality of mega projects, that this research will make its major contribution. R25 Taking a practice-based approach on mega projects, this study concentrates R26 on how collaboration comes about in these complex social settings. Since the R27 results of mega projects show that collaboration does not live up to its promising R28 prospects (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005), insight into the impact of cultural complexity R29 on collaboration is highly relevant for understanding and improving project results. R30 A focus on the practices of collaboration of the organization gives insight into R31 how actors deal with disparities in values and interests, and illustrates how project R32 R33 R34

27 Chapter 1

R1 participants make sense of and reflect upon their practices in their everyday work environment. Furthermore, the ethnographic nature of this study contributes to the R3 current academic debate on collaboration as it gains insight into the social processes of cross-cultural collaboration and illustrates what actors actually do when they R5 collaborate. The outcomes of this study can support project organizations to adapt R6 to the cultural complexity and thereby help to prevent delays and cost overruns R7 in mega projects. By studying the actuality of projects this research sheds light on R8 the practices of collaboration that occur when actors with a multiplicity of cultural R9 backgrounds, interests and experiences come together and interact. Overall, this R10 research will provide beneficial input to more satisfactory processes and outcomes R11 of mega projects. R12 This dissertation is structured as follows. In the first part of the book, I present the R13 foundations for this study. In chapter two I portray the analytical framework evolving R14 around the theoretical key concepts of this study and I emphasize that a focus on the R15 everyday life in a project organization requires a practice-based approach. In chapter R16 three I elaborate on the research methodology and methods of the study that fit this R17 approach. I explain that this research builds upon social constructionism, a philosophy R18 of science that perceives the social nature of reality as something that is socially R19 constructed by human beings, rather than as something that is naturally given. In R20 this chapter, I furthermore describe how the data was gathered and analyzed and R21 how the process of writing developed. Finally, this chapter provides a reflection on R22 my experiences and role in the field. In chapter four I introduce the context of the R23 research setting. After a brief history on the Panama Canal, I describe the Expansion R24 Program, its components and the organizations that were at the heart of this study. R25 The project owner, the organization Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (Panama Canal R26 Authority) is presented first, followed by a short description of the consultancy firm R27 CH2M Hill. Furthermore, we get acquainted with the consortium Grupo Unidos por R28 el Canal (United Group for the Canal) and its separate organizations: Sacyr, Impregilo, R29 Jan de Nul and CUSA. R30 The second part of the book comprises the empirical data and its analysis. This R31 part begins with an interlude, depicting the award ceremony that marked the starting R32 point for the partners of Grupo Unidos por el Canal to collaborate in the execution R33 R34

28 Introducing the Field

of the Third Set of Locks project. In chapter five I illustrate the collaboration between R1 the organizational actors of Grupo Unidos por el Canal and expose various practices R2 of collaboration that emerged within the project organization. The portrayal of R3 how collaboration became manifest within Grupo Unidos por el Canal continues in R4 chapter six. In this chapter I demonstrate the practices that the project participants R5 enacted, shaped or initiated when building a collaborative relationship amongst R6 them. In the last empirical chapter, chapter seven, I outline the collaboration between R7 the Autoridad del Canal de Panamá and CH2M Hill. More specifically, I introduce R8 chaperoning, a practice aimed at the guidance and supervision of learners in the field R9 of project management, and how actors perceived this practice. R10 The third part of the book is dedicated to further analysis of the data and the R11 conclusions of this study. In chapter eight I first answer the research questions R12 that were set out to guide this study. Thereafter, I draw conclusions and present a R13 collaboration continuum portraying how the practices of collaboration affect the R14 development of a collaborative relationship between project participants. In addition, R15 I reflect upon this study and provide suggestions for future research. Finally, this R16 dissertation ends with implications for practitioners. R17 R18 Cross Culture Work R19 R20 Before moving to the next part of this book, I would like to take this space to R21 elaborate on its title: Cross-Culture Work. This study contributes to a stream of R22 research that perceives culture as something that is socially constructed, affected by R23 the actions of actors and their interactions. Earlier, the academic fields of research R24 on institutional theory and identity theory shifted their attention from structure to R25 agency, incorporating the notion of how the action of actors has an impact on, R26 respectively, institutions and identity. Lawrence and Suddaby (2006), for example, R27 claim that institutional theory should focus on establishing a broader vision of agency R28 in relation to institutions. They state that the study of institutional work concerns “the R29 practical actions through which institutions are created, maintained and disrupted.” R30 In a similar line of thought, identity research moved towards a more situational R31 approach. Schwalbe and Schrock (1996) explain that identity work refers to anything R32 R33 R34

29 Chapter 1

R1 that people do, individually or collectively, to give meaning to themselves or others and, as such, is largely a matter of signifying, labeling and identifying. Similarly, I R3 claim that the field of culture research should change its view from a fixed notion of culture and set differences between cultures towards a perspective on culture R5 that acknowledges that culture is something that is constructed, affected by the R6 actions and interactions of its actors. Following this idea, the concept ‘cross culture R7 work’ highlights the intentional and unintentional actions taken in relation to culture, R8 some highly visible and dramatic, others nearly invisible and mundane, to make sense R9 of and give meaning to culture. Criticizing frameworks based on national culture R10 comparisons (e.g. Hofstede, 1980), cross culture work reorients its focus towards R11 the interaction between cultures and involves practices, processes, strategies, as well R12 as ambiguities, inconsistencies and, sometimes, resistances. Particularly, using the R13 language of work to describe what is going on in cultural interactions reminds us R14 that the construction of culture and social reality are an achievement; they do not just R15 happen but need interaction between people to be accomplished. R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

30 Part I Going to the Field

Chapter 2

Practices of Collaboration

in Mega Projects Chapter 2

R1 Introduction

R3 The research approach for this study, as formulated in the first chapter, builds on the social constructionism philosophy of science. Based on this view of reality, this R5 chapter presents the theoretical background to the central question under study R6 - how collaboration manifests itself in the daily practices of project participants in R7 infrastructural mega projects. In short, this chapter is about practices of collaboration. R8 In this chapter I will put forward concepts and ideas that make studying the R9 internal dynamics within a project organization possible. One of the central themes R10 throughout this study is the connection between the ‘practice turn’ in project R11 management research and the various organizational cultures that come together in R12 a project organization. I highlight that, to study everyday life in a project organization R13 it is required to focus on practices. For writing this chapter I have been particularly R14 inspired by previous studies on practices in project management (Blomquist, Hällgren, R15 Nilsson, & Söderholm, 2010; Hällgren & Söderholm, 2011), practice-based studies R16 (Gherardi, 2000; Nicolini, Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003b) and cross-cultural collaboration R17 (Boyacigiller et al., 2004; Huxham, 1996; Sackmann & Philips, 2004). First, I will give R18 an overview of the debate around project management research and elaborate on R19 the practice-based approach. Thereafter, I will explain cross-cultural collaboration and R20 give insight into the academic debate on cross-cultural management. My aim is to R21 emphasize the importance of a focus on the various cultures that come together R22 in a project organization and to underscore that a practice approach is helpful for R23 understanding cross-cultural collaboration among project participants. R24 R25 Developments in Project Management Research R26 R27 Mega projects have been managed since the history of mankind. Examples such R28 as the Maya cities in Mexico, the pyramids of Egypt and the Khmer temples in R29 Cambodia prove that our history is full of extraordinary engineering achievements and R30 remarkable undertakings that illustrate human’s capacity to accomplish challenging, R31 complex projects. Although project roles and tools, such as the position of the project R32 engineer and the well-known Gantt chart existed in the early 1900s, language R33 R34

34 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

directing towards contemporary project management does not seem to be used R1 before the early 1950s (Morris, 2011). The technological advances of engineering in R2 the 1940s/1950s, and in particular the US military and defense sectors in this period, R3 shaped project management as a problem-solving method using various types of R4 techniques and methods to deliver high-profile mega projects (Cicmil & Hodgson, R5 2006). As such, project management, and also project management research, would R6 fall very close to optimization theory and applied mathematics, and therefore, be R7 part of the engineering discipline (Söderlund, 2004). With its intellectual roots in R8 engineering science, this theoretical tradition of project management research is R9 mostly concerned with planning techniques, tools for optimizing project performance R10 and methods of project management (Söderlund, 2004). It focuses on developing the R11 best practices to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of project management and R12 deliver projects in time, on budget and within scope. Another theoretical tradition R13 of project management research finds its intellectual roots in social sciences and is R14 interested in project management as a social practice, studying the organizational R15 and behavioral aspects in project organizations (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Söderlund, R16 2004; Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). Researchers within this second tradition R17 perceive projects as a phenomenon of organizing and attempt to explain the art and R18 practice of managing projects. Until the 1960s however, the technicist approach, R19 using quantitative techniques within operational research, had led the field of project R20 management research. Following this period, the design of projects and project R21 management spread into the business world, and beyond. By the late 1960s and R22 early 1970s ideas on organizational integration and task accomplishments had begun R23 to attract serious academic attention (Morris, 2011; Winter, Smith, Morris, & Cicmil, R24 2006). Simultaneously, many executives found themselves persuaded to manage R25 projects for the first time and, as a result, more conferences were organized and R26 project management associations such as the Project Management Institute (PMI) R27 and the International Management Systems Association (also called INTERNET, now R28 the International Project Management Association, IPMA) established (Morris, 2011). R29 Interestingly enough, numerous mega projects from this period showed negative R30 performance. The nuclear power industry, the oil and gas industry, and even the US R31 weapons program experienced massive problems of projects that did not perform R32 R33 R34

35 Chapter 2

R1 accordingly (Morris, 2011). Academics started to criticize the discipline for its ‘hard’ systems model emphasizing on the planning and control dimensions of project R3 management. Their critique revolved around the discipline’s failure in dealing with the increasingly front-end work, the comparable view on projects and the lack of attention R5 for human issues (Winter et al., 2006). As a solution to the criticism, Human Resource R6 Management and the expansion of Information Technology were incorporated into R7 the project management discourse. Operational Research resurfaced in the 1980s R8 and 1990s, which resulted in project control methodologies such as project planning R9 systems, project monitoring models, and project communication models (Cicmil & R10 Hodgson, 2006). As a result of structuring the project management knowledge of R11 researchers and practitioners, the PMI initiated the Project Management Body of R12 Knowledge (PMBOK). Originally classifying six knowledge areas, namely: (1) scope R13 management, (2) time management, (3) cost management, (4) quality management, R14 (5) human resource management, and (6) communication management, it later added R15 three more: (7) risk management, (8) procurement management and (9) integration R16 management. Soon after, the IPMA and other project management associations R17 around the world followed with similar models for managing projects (Morris, 2011). R18 Since then, business and management researchers as well as educators have been R19 engaged in the field of project management, which became widely recognized as a R20 ‘multidisciplinary subject’ (Winch in Cicmil and Hodgson, 2006). Researchers from R21 disciplines such as psychology, anthropology, business administration, pedagogy, R22 organization theory, industrial engineering and sociology also became interested R23 in projects and the management of projects. It was mainly in this period of time R24 that academics explicitly perceived projects as temporal, organizational and social R25 arrangements that should be studied in terms of their context, culture, conceptions R26 and relevance (e.g. Kreiner, 1995; Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Packendorff, 1995). R27 In the early 2000s, worldwide, project-based work became accepted as a dominant R28 organizational response to the challenges of managing projects in a complex world R29 (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006). Simultaneously, the project management community R30 developed to be more ‘business driven’, better technologically qualified, more R31 commercialized, and more reflective (Morris, 2011). Project management became, R32 and still is, the core competence of many firms. R33 R34

36 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

In academic circles, researchers became more aware of projects as unique R1 and fascinating organizational phenomena. Shifting away from the traditional R2 understanding, the Scandinavian School of project studies introduced a more R3 sociological perspective to the field of project management. Arguing that too R4 much effort has been dedicated to clarifying the reasons for project success and R5 failure, this group of scholars claims that we need to know more about the internal R6 dynamics in project organizations, such as: the ‘action’ and ‘temporariness’ between R7 its participants (Söderlund, 2004), the experiences of multi-cultural project teams R8 (Mäkilouko, 2004) and the projects’ environment (Engwall, 2003). With these R9 attempts to move the field of project management research forward, the body of R10 knowledge has slowly developed towards more interest in the behavior of project R11 participants, a topic that was previously underrepresented in project management R12 literature. In line with this, Morris et al. (2011) recognize the development of a ‘third R13 wave’ in project management research; the first wave being the theoretical tradition R14 focusing on normative tools and techniques to improve project performance, and R15 the development towards contingency models and thinking in projects as temporary R16 organizations as the second wave. The third wave is characterized by: (1) its interest R17 in the theoretical foundations and history of project management; (2) a focus R18 on the importance of its social setting; (3) a recognition for the relation between R19 organizations and projects; and therefore (4) an interest in the link between projects R20 and strategy and innovation; (5) respect for the role of governance and control within R21 and across organizations; (6) better acknowledgement of the role of leadership and R22 the challenges for developing trust and competence; and (7) perceiving projects as R23 unique, complex organizations (Morris et al., 2011). Although Cicmil and Hodgson R24 (2006) appreciate the notable influence of the Scandinavian School on project R25 management literature, they argue that the school remains too conservative in its R26 ambitions. In their aim to open new trajectories for the field of project management R27 research, Cicmil and Hodgson suggest a more critical approach and see the need for R28 a wider picture of what goes on in projects and in the management of projects. The R29 scholars express the need to explore how the relationship between individuals and R30 collectivities are being produced and reproduced, and how power relations create and R31 sustain social reality in projects (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006). As such, they claim that R32 R33 R34

37 Chapter 2

R1 project management research should focus on the ‘actuality’ in project organizations and should strive for the lived experiences of its participants (Cicmil et al., 2006). Morris R3 (2010) agrees that future project management research should aim to stay close to practitioners, but warns researchers not to go ‘soft’ by perceiving projects primarily R5 as organizational phenomena. He stresses that the pendulum in project management R6 research may have swung too far towards the field of social scientists and encourages R7 researchers to emphasize on the projects’ purpose, creation and delivery (Morris, R8 2010). Yet, in contrast, various researchers believe that this pendulum can reach R9 even further; they argue that the integration of social science perspectives to the R10 field of project management has not gone far enough. Grabher (2002) for example, R11 inspires researchers to investigate the paradox that project participants have to deal R12 with while working in a temporary project and being affiliated with a permanent R13 organization. Others suggest to dig into social aspects such as collaboration and R14 knowledge integration among project participants (e.g. Dietrich, Eskerod, Darlcher, R15 & Sandhawalia, 2010; Sydow, Lindkvist, & DeFillippi, 2004). Furthermore, Bresnen R16 and his colleagues (2005) seek to gain deeper insight into the social complexities of R17 (construction) projects and project management by taking a social science perspective R18 on problems that typically occur in projects. They, however, go further than finding R19 an understanding of the impact that specific social factors might have on project R20 performance, but problematize the project organization and the management R21 of projects itself (Bresnen et al., 2005a - emphasis original). Van Marrewijk, too, R22 emphasizes that the field of project management research needs to be expanded R23 with perspectives from social sciences and introduces an anthropological approach R24 to projects (Van Marrewijk, 2009). In his studies, he unravels five cultural themes R25 for managing complex projects; (1) cultural stratification; (2) cultural diversity and R26 local representation; (3) situational behavior and power relations; (4) practices of R27 cultural collaboration; and (5) spatial setting and materiality. Van Marrewijk (2009) R28 argues that project execution can be enhanced when participants gain more insight R29 into the cultural practices that affect the project organization and highlights that R30 cultural themes need to become more dominant in the management of projects. R31 This is closely in line with recently noted directions for future project management R32 research. Scholars demand more focus on the internal dynamics of projects; that is, to R33 R34

38 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

study the project participants’ behavior, they express the need to study projects from R1 “within” as well as by its context, and suggest longitudinal studies that can deliver R2 empirical illustrations of what is going on in the project organization (Jacobsson & R3 Söderholm, 2011; Morris et al., 2011; Winter et al., 2006). A more detailed empirical R4 examination of practitioners and their values, practices and expectations, as well as R5 a more international perspective, outside the Anglo-Saxon economies, can further R6 develop the field of project management research (Hodgson & Muzio, 2011). R7 R8 The Practice Turn in Project Management Research R9 The introduction of the ‘practice turn’ (Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, & Von Savigny, 2001) is R10 one step forward in studying projects and the management of projects (Blomquist et R11 al., 2010; Bresnen, 2009; Hällgren & Söderholm, 2010; Van Marrewijk, Veenswijk, & R12 Clegg, 2010). Emerging as an important approach to understand social phenomena R13 within and between organizations, the practice turn gave rise to an increasing R14 amount of attention and research around practice-based studies, a more general R15 label for the multiplicity of studies evolving around the notion of situated working R16 practices (Gherardi & Perrotta, 2011). By ‘bringing the work back in’ scholars in this R17 field aim to develop better images of post bureaucratic organizing, to resolve existing R18 theoretical dilemmas or, essentially, to enhance the understanding of organizing itself R19 (Barley & Kunda, 2001). With a focus on organizing, not the organization, as Weick R20 (1979) demanded, research on practice emphasizes on action and interaction, on R21 the details of work, and seeks to explain a specific phenomenon by studying what R22 people actually do and say (Barley & Kunda, 2001; Nicolini et al., 2003a). Practices R23 are perceived by arrays of activities, but there is no cohesive definition available R24 explaining what a practice is. Barnes (2001) suggests to use the following description: R25 R26 Practices [are] socially recognized forms of activity, done on the basis of what R27 members learn from others, and capable of being done well or badly, correctly R28 or incorrectly. (Barnes, 2001:19) R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

39 Chapter 2

R1 He recognizes that this is a very broad explanation of practice, but emphasizes that it therefore might prove to be useful. Swidler (2001) narrows this definition R3 down by adding that the essential element of practices, and, at the same time, the feature that differentiates practices from most habits, is that they are the R5 infrastructure of repeated interactional patterns. She states that practices “remain R6 stable not only because habit ingrains standard ways of doing things, but because R7 the need to engage one another forces people to return to common structures” R8 (Swidler, 2001:85). Although this distinguishes practice from habit, the description R9 leans towards understanding practice as a routine. Organizational routines (see R10 Becker, 2004 for an extensive literature review), however, are strongly associated R11 with structure, stability and rigidity, while practices encompass the role of human R12 agency (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011). Yanow and Tsoukas (2009) distinguish three R13 features that constitute a practice: (1) a practice involves cooperative effort of human R14 beings and is extended in time and bounded by rules, (2) every practice establishes R15 a set of ‘internal goods’: outcomes that cannot be achieved in any other way than R16 through participating in the practice itself, and (3) joining and participating a practice R17 necessarily involves attempting to achieve the standards of excellence operative in the R18 practice at that time. Most practice researchers jointly belief that phenomena such as R19 knowledge, meaning, human activity, science, power, language, social institutions, R20 and historical transformation take place and are components of the field of practices R21 (Schatzki, 2001). R22 Representatives of various schools of thought, such as philosophy, sociology, R23 anthropology and discourse analyses, to name a few, made contributions to the R24 current understanding of practice in organization studies. To unravel the diverse R25 traditions of thoughts about the practice theme, Nicolini et al. (2003a) highlight three R26 major roots that contribute to the work around studying practice in organization R27 studies. The first tradition is based on how Marx perceived the notion of practice. R28 From his perspective, thought and world are inseparably connected through human R29 activity (Nicolini et al., 2003a). Practice is viewed as the product of specific historical R30 conditions formed by previous practices and converted into new practices. Marx also R31 introduced the idea that, for a full understanding of the meaning of human action, R32 one needs to focus on the entire context of that action (Nicolini et al., 2003a). Thus, R33 R34

40 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

one can only fully understand the meaning of practice when the interrelated actions, R1 behaviors and context are taken into account. The second tradition evolves around R2 phenomenology and symbolic interactionism. The phenomenological tradition R3 recognizes that activities such as work, learning, innovation, communication, conflicts R4 over goals, their interpretation and history are co-present in everyday organizational R5 practice (Gherardi, 2000; Nicolini et al., 2003a). Social interactionism focuses on R6 micro-level interaction, as it believes that, to understand human action, knowledge R7 can only be accessed through interaction. Hence, to understand a practice, one R8 needs to become a member of the group, community or local culture, and is required R9 to participate in the interaction and engagement with the local web of interpretative, R10 meaning-making processes (Nicolini et al., 2003a). The third tradition that supports R11 the notion of practice evolves around Wittgenstein’s legacy stating that language is R12 mainly a practical and social undertaking (Nicolini et al., 2003a). For this tradition, R13 participation in a practice is only possible by taking part in a professional language R14 game, mastering the rules, and being able to use them (Gherardi, 2000; Nicolini et R15 al., 2003a). In sum, these three traditions illustrate that the notion of practice derives R16 from various traditions of thought, which explains why there is no unified practice R17 theory or practice-based approach (Gherardi, 2009; Miettinen, Samra-Fredericks, & R18 Yanow, 2009; Nicolini et al., 2003a). R19 Due to such diversity in schools of thought on studying practices, scholars R20 often list overlapping factors, notions or challenges that practice researchers R21 experience and encounter. Miettinen and his colleagues, for example, express that R22 the following features are dominant in practice research: “the embodied nature of R23 practice; knowledge as a way of acting and using artifacts, rather than only as verbal R24 representations of world; and the significance of material objects and artifacts for R25 practices” (Miettinen et al., 2009:1312). In a similar vein, Feldman and Orlikowski R26 (2011) note three key elements in practice-based studies: (1) situated actions are R27 consequential in the production of social reality, (2) dualisms are rejected as a way R28 of building theory and (3) relationships of mutual constitution are significant. Or, R29 less abstract, practices shape and are shaped by social reality, analytical oppositions R30 should be perceived as independent concepts, and phenomena are always related R31 to each other. Taking these key elements in account, practice can be studied from R32 R33 R34

41 Chapter 2

R1 different perspectives. In earlier work, Orlikowski (2010) distinguishes three ways of engaging with practice in research: (1) an empirical focus that studies practice as a R3 phenomenon, referring to what happens ‘in practice’ as opposed to what is expected from ‘theory’; (2) a theoretical focus that takes practice as a perspective, identifying R5 a powerful lens for studying a particular organizational phenomena; and (3) a R6 philosophical focus on practice, representing the ontological primacy of practice as R7 fundamental to producing social reality. When focusing on the empirics of practice, R8 organizational phenomena are viewed as dynamic, ongoing, everyday actions R9 (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011). The theoretical focus of practice is interested in the R10 mutually constitutive ways in which agency is shaped, but also produces, reinforces R11 and changes its structural conditions, and, from a practice ontology, it is understood R12 that practices produce organizational reality (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011). R13 Although views on practice and its connection to activity may differ, most R14 scholars underscore that the potential of the concept practice is to explain complex R15 organizational phenomena as they occur and thus, to understand what people R16 actually do, how they do it, and under what circumstances actions are carried out R17 (Miettinen et al., 2009; Nicolini et al., 2003a; Orlikowski, 2010). Within organization R18 studies, the practice turn rejects any positivist position and instead takes a social R19 constructionist perspective, arguing that ‘reality’ is constructed in the social interaction R20 among people (Geiger, 2009; Gherardi, 2000). This perspective focuses on practices R21 as collective endeavors and is interested in actions and interactions, the objectives R22 and language used in social interactions and the specific meaning that actions give R23 to artifacts and situations (Nicolini et al., 2003a). Practices are viewed as a bricolage R24 of material, mental, social and cultural resources and considered as ways of actions R25 that are relational, mediated by artifacts and always rooted in a context of interaction R26 (Nicolini et al., 2003a). Geiger (2009) recognizes that practicing is not an individual R27 cognitive resource, but rather an activity that people do together. Moreover, he verifies R28 that practicing is a process of continuous enactment, refinement, reproduction and R29 change based on tacitly shared understandings within the practicing community. R30 In the process of interaction practices are translated and negotiated, but also new R31 practices are generated (Geiger, 2009). R32 R33 R34

42 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

Geiger’s view on practices implies that practices are dynamic and loose, but the R1 ongoing flow of activities contains a momentary stability in which actors make sense R2 of the situation. Weick et al. (2005) refer to this moment as an incipient state of sense R3 making, which he calls ‘bracketing’. To make sense of a practice, phenomena have R4 to be “carved out of the undifferentiated flux of raw experiences, and conceptually R5 fixed and labeled so that they can become common currency for communicational R6 exchanges” (Weick et al., 2005: 411). In their everyday activities, actors select (or R7 bracket) a portion of streaming circumstances into words and categories to give R8 meaning to what is happening. As Orlikowski (2002) argues, actors are purposive R9 and reflexive, and continually monitor the ongoing flow of action -that of their R10 own and that of others- and the social physical context in which their activities are R11 constituted. Reflexivity, to reflect on one’s behavior as an observer, is guided by one’s R12 preconceptions and previous experiences, and influences how one makes sense of R13 new events. Interaction with the outside world as well as humans’ intrinsic ability R14 to interact their own thoughts, guide the actor to draw new distinctions, imagine R15 new things and create new understandings (Tsoukas & Chia, 2010). This means that R16 actors enact the ongoing stream of events and stimuli in their environment and, R17 based on their own interpretative framework, create their own (socially constructed) R18 realities (Duijnhoven, 2010). Based on the work of Schön, Yanow and Tsoukas (2009) R19 termed the moment that actors step out of their routine to focus on how it can R20 be reshaped as ‘reflection-in-action’. With an emphasis on in, not reflection-on- R21 action, they underscore that in the midst of the action actors are reflexive about R22 their practices and able to readjust their routinized actions into new practices. To R23 further explain the concept, Yanow and Tsoukas use the example of improvisational R24 theatre where the phrase ‘in the moment’ refers to the spontaneously change R25 of actions in respond to the rapidly moving situation (Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). R26 They denote four elements of improvisational theatre to illustrate reflection-in- R27 action. Firstly, improvisation is a collective practice consisting of working together, R28 interacting together and building on “extended, prior conjoint experience and R29 mutual, collective, inter-knowing (as well as self-knowledge)” (Yanow & Tsoukas, R30 2009:1345 - emphasis original). Secondly, improvisation takes place ‘in the moment’, R31 which relates to a focus on the matter at hand. Thirdly, there is no planning involved R32 R33 R34

43 Chapter 2

R1 at this moment. Although improvisation draws on a great repertoire of practiced moves and rehearsals, no reasoned considerations of actions is done in the moment R3 itself. Fourthly, practitioners build on what was just said or done in the previous scene, elaborating on what is already known. Hence, like actors in improvisation R5 theatre who are ‘in dialogue’, practitioners reflecting-in-action focus on what he or R6 she is in the midst of doing, with the available tools, materials and fellow actors, to R7 deal with the particular set of circumstances presented at a certain moment. This R8 might appear as on-the-spot improvisation to outsiders, but is in fact a context- R9 specific, embedded judgment about what will work best in specific circumstances, R10 based upon a repertoire that has been rehearsed -practiced- over time (Yanow & R11 Tsoukas, 2009). Consequently, actors make sense by “turning circumstances into in R12 a situation that is comprehended explicitly in words and that serves as a springboard R13 into action” (Weick et al., 2005: 409). When bracketing, actors step out of their R14 routine to give meaning to what is occurring and focus on how their practice can R15 be reshaped to become a new orderliness situation. They interact with others and R16 themselves at the same time while being mindful of earlier patterns of actions. In R17 this process, “established generalizations may be supplemented, eroded, modified, R18 or, at any rate, interpreted in oftentimes unpredictable ways” (Tsoukas & Chia, 2010: R19 573). While doing so, actors come to make sense of their practices in ways that both R20 constrain and provide opportunities for new practices (Helms Mills, 2003). R21 Bjørkjeng et al. (2009) find three essential mechanisms for the becoming of R22 new practices. Firstly, employees construct formal and informal boundaries in R23 which activities are still perceived as legitimate parts of practice. Secondly, actors R24 continuously negotiate and reinterpret what they perceive as competent practicing. R25 Thirdly, physical materials are intertwined in practicing and included as essential R26 elements of a practice. Through these mechanisms employees of diverse cultural R27 backgrounds construct new practices that actors experience as meaningful and R28 useful (Jackson & Aycan, 2006). While it might seem that practices are accessible, R29 observable, measurable or easy to define, paradoxically, practices are rather hidden, R30 tacit and often difficult to define in linguistic propositional terms (Corradi, Gherardi, & R31 Verzelloni, 2010). Bjørkeng and his colleagues (2009) add that practice is everything, R32 and thus nothing, and claim that, for substantive specificity, particular practices need R33 to be studied; practices of collaboration for example. R34

44 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

Recently, the practice approach has entered the field of project management research. R1 With a focus on the increasing complexity in mega projects, this approach can give R2 more insight into what is actually going on in project organizations and how project R3 participants make sense of the various cultures and practices that come together in R4 their everyday work setting. As such, the projects-as practice approach emerged. R5 R6 Projects-as-Practice R7 As described earlier, the new research agenda for project management research re- R8 quires a closer focus on both the outside (its context) and the inside (the internal R9 dynamics) of project organizations. Subsequently to the traditional approach R10 that studies the developments of systems, tools and methods for better project R11 performance, and the process-oriented approach that includes the human element in R12 project management research, the introduction of the practice turn is an illustration R13 of the ‘third wave’ in project management research. That is to say, when the R14 primary interest is in the micro activities, the daily practices of project participants, R15 the process approach cannot provide a clear answer (Hällgren & Söderholm, 2010). R16 Consequently, the daily practices become an important source of inspiration to the R17 project management researcher (Morris et al., 2011). Both inspired by practices R18 and as an answer to the plea for more research on the internal dynamics of project R19 organizations, several scholars introduced practice-based thinking to project R20 management studies (e.g. Blomquist et al., 2010; Bresnen, 2009; Hällgren & Wilson, R21 2008). One such case in point is Bresnen’s study (2009), which illustrates the value of R22 applying the practice-based perspective to the field so that a deeper understanding R23 of the lived experience of project participants can be achieved. Instead of following R24 the theoretical tradition of project management research, Bresnen (2009) shows that R25 there is another way of studying how practices are translated and negotiated in situ R26 and how knowledge and learning is situated in practice. What is more, Scandinavian R27 researchers created the ‘projects-as-practice’ framework (Blomquist et al., 2010). This R28 framework focuses on the actor, its actions and activities, rather than on systems and R29 models and how these can be applied to projects (Blomquist et al., 2010). Essentially, R30 the projects-as-practice approach is interested in what is actually going on in project R31 settings when values, beliefs, experience and expectations come together. Blomquist R32 R33 R34

45 Chapter 2

R1 and his colleagues (2010) argue that more fine-grained analysis of micro activities and a bottom up analysis of what actors actually do when they work in a project R3 organization will make a significant contribution to the understanding of projects and the field of project management research. The practice turn in project management R5 research concentrates itself in the ‘doings and sayings’ of actors in projects. R6 Although the project-as-practice framework is appreciated for bringing two R7 worlds together, project management research and practice-based studies, its R8 interpretation of practice differs from how practice is understood in this thesis. R9 Drawing on strategy-as-practice (see Whittington, 1996; 2006 for introduction), R10 Blomquist et al. (2010) emphasize three core concepts in their framework: praxis, R11 practitioner and practices. Praxis refers to the actions of a project participant, such as R12 what he or she does in a certain situation and how certain methods and techniques R13 are applied. Practitioner signifies to the individual who performs the actions, like R14 the project manager. And practices are the taken for granted notions embodying R15 the ‘things we do around here’, such as the norms, values, rules and (unwritten) R16 policies within a community. In this sense, practice is seen as an ‘empirical object’ and R17 scholars in this stream of practice research focus on the activities of the practitioner, R18 or rather, their aim is to verify how actors translate strategic directions into their R19 everyday practices (Corradi et al., 2010). Whereas in this thesis, practice is interpreted R20 as a ‘way of seeing’, which refers to seeing how actors undertake their everyday R21 actions within a constantly evolving context and understanding the ‘situatedness’ of R22 practices (Corradi et al., 2010). As such, the project-as practice framework remains, R23 like strategy-as-practice, within the tradition of mainstream, functional research, R24 while, in this thesis, a more critical approach on practice is followed. R25 Despite its differing fundamentals, the project-as-practice framework contains R26 various elements that are valuable for my research. To start with, Hällgren and R27 Söderholm (2011) list several important assumptions motivating the framework, of R28 which four inspire this study. First of all, to understand the actions and activities of R29 project participants, the projects-as-practice approach focuses on the practices and R30 their meaning in a specific social setting. Second, the framework does not perceive R31 projects as a pre-defined organizational unit with hierarchical relations; it prefers to R32 observe projects as the constantly renegotiated sum of activities of the actors involved. R33 R34

46 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

Third, it is not the outcome of project activities that is under study, but rather the R1 way in which an activity is performed and the underlying assumptions that belong R2 to this activity. And fourth, projects-as-practice research examines the phenomenon R3 under study more closely, which is, although depending on the questions that are R4 asked, mostly done with ethnographic research methods. Accordingly, projects are R5 not perceived as a commodity, but as a bundle of communities and intertwined R6 practices, and thus treated as something one can do instead of something one can R7 have (Blomquist et al., 2010). Furthermore, from the perspective of this framework, R8 projects are not about systems and planning, but about people using the systems R9 and making these plans. To understand certain project activities, the behavior of R10 its participants is essential (Hällgren & Söderholm, 2010). Hence, an in-depth R11 understanding of the project activities and how participants behave in the various R12 situations as well as how they create a mutual or opposing understanding of their R13 work, is of great value for anyone interested in project management (Blomquist et al., R14 2010). Finally, the projects-as-practice approach provides detailed insight into those R15 specific elements that are usually overseen and/or perceived as irrelevant for further R16 attention (Hällgren & Söderholm, 2011). Or, as Van Marrewijk (2009) aptly portrays, R17 we need to turn everyday (project) activities into exotic practices. R18 As shown above, the field of project management research is gradually developing R19 towards a greater interest in what is actually occurring in projects, and researchers R20 express the need to better understand the daily activities of project participants. R21 The projects-as-practice approach allows us to gain deeper insight into how actors R22 make sense of, and respond to, the complex, culturally diverse and ambiguous R23 project setting. Projects often contain a high number of participants residing from R24 various organizations, each bringing their own idiosyncratic practices to the project, R25 which requires an intensive inter-organizational collaboration; a cross-cultural R26 collaboration. Arguing that the quality of collaborative relationships is a key factor in R27 successful project outcomes, various scholars plea for more in-depth understanding R28 of collaboration in project organizations (e.g. Bresnen & Marshall, 2002; Cicmil R29 & Marshall, 2005; Dietrich et al., 2010; Pitsis et al., 2004; Van Marrewijk, 2005). R30 Furthermore, the increasing popularity of joint ventures and other collaborative forms R31 of organizing in the field of project management has brought collaboration as a R32 R33 R34

47 Chapter 2

R1 topic right to the heart of contemporary management research (Winch, Millar, & Clifton, 1997). Interestingly, the academic debate on cross-cultural management is R3 also gaining interest in the practices that occur when actors work together. One such example is the recently published book Cross-Cultural Management in Practice: R5 Culture and Negotiate Meanings by Primecz et al. (2011). This edited volume R6 represents illustrations and insights on how organizational actors deal with cultural R7 complexity in the everyday (inter-) organizational collaboration. Moreover, the R8 conveners of the sub-theme I attended at the EGOS colloquium in Helsinki urged the R9 need for ‘more empirical research and well-grounded theorizing’, and indicated that R10 focusing on ‘how collaboration is accomplished and what actors actually do’ should R11 open ‘the black box of collaboration’2. This research applies both research debates; R12 the projects-as-practice approach is taken into account while studying cross-cultural R13 collaboration in a mega project. Hence, the following section will elaborate on cross- R14 cultural collaboration and project management, followed by a brief overview of the R15 ongoing academic debate on cross-cultural management. R16 R17 Cross-Cultural Collaboration and Project Management R18 R19 When studying collaboration, we should have a clear sight on what ‘collaboration’ R20 actually is. Originating from the Latin root words com and laborare, collaboration R21 basically means ‘to work together’ (Merriam Webster Dictionary). Also the Dutch R22 word samenwerken, which literally means ‘working together’, neatly captures the R23 intention (Huxham, 1996). The search for a more comprehensive definition leads R24 to a maze of different interpretations of the term itself, as an enormous amount of R25 vocabulary is used to describe inter-organizational arrangements that are perceived R26 as collaboration. From the field of project management research, Dietrich and his R27 colleagues define collaboration as “a recursive process where people or organizations R28 work together in an intersection of common goals by sharing knowledge, learning R29 and building consensus” (Dietrich et al., 2010:60). Barbara Gray’s (1989) influential R30 2 Kristina Lauche, Hans Berends and Anne-Laure Fayard convened sub-theme 56: Practices of Inter- R31 Organizational Collaboration: Designed or Emerging?! at the 28th EGOS Colloquium in Helsinki, R32 Finland, from July 5-7, 2012. During the kick-off session of the sub-theme they emphasized the need for opening ‘the black box of collaboration to see how collaboration is accomplished and what actors R33 actually do’ and plead for ‘more empirical research data and well-grounded theorizing’. R34

48 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

work provides a more robust explanation of collaboration. She defines collaboration R1 as “a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can R2 constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their R3 own limited vision of what is possible” (Gray, 1989:5). A more practical definition is R4 given by Himmelman (1996). He states that organizational collaboration “is a process R5 in which organizations exchange information, alter activities, share resources and R6 enhance each other’s capacity for mutual benefit and a common purpose by sharing R7 risks, responsibilities and rewards” (Himmelman, 1996:22). However, frequently used R8 interchangeably, terms as cooperation and coordination have close connotations with R9 the term collaboration. Often termed as the ‘3C’s’, Keast et al. (2007) place the three R10 terms on a scale of relationship intensity. Short-term and informal relations characterize R11 ‘cooperation’, in which organizations maintain a fragmented relationship for the R12 sake of sharing information at a low level of risk (Keast et al., 2007). ‘Coordination’ R13 is found at the middle of the continuum. Here, the level of relationship between R14 organizations requires a higher degree of effort, commitment and often, more formal R15 structures and activities are developed, resulting in mutual benefits and shared risks R16 (Keast et al., 2007). Following Keast et al. (2007), ‘collaboration’ requires a strong R17 and intense relationship between organizations that involves sharing resources, R18 aligning activities and actually working together, but also brings about a high degree R19 of risk and the need for commitment and trust among participants. Collaboration is R20 the strongest form of relationship between organizations and therefore appears on R21 the other end of the relationship intensity scale (Keast et al., 2007). R22 Preliminary work on the nature of collaboration was undertaken by Huxham R23 and Vangen (2004). They draw our attention to two concepts that are central in R24 their exploration: collaborative advantage and collaborative inertia. Collaborative R25 advantage captures synergy and refers to an achievement that could not have R26 been attained by any of the organizations acting alone (Huxham, 1996; Huxham & R27 Vangen, 2004). It provides the purpose of collaboration and, as such, defines a high R28 value and ambitious form of collaboration; its intention is not to gain advantage R29 over another party, but to obtain advantage for all participants (Huxham, 1996; R30 Vangen & Huxham, 2003). The second concept, collaborative inertia, captures the R31 opposite outcome of collaboration. This concept is used to describe an output of R32 R33 R34

49 Chapter 2

R1 collaborative arrangements that fails to meet expectations. It illustrates situations in which collaboration makes only hard-fought or negligible progress, and where stories R3 of pain and hard grind were fundamental to successes achieved (Huxham, 1996, 2003; Huxham & Vangen, 2004; Vangen & Huxham, 2003). Thus, collaboration that R5 is hindered and resulted in disappointing outcomes relates to collaborative inertia, R6 and collaboration that led to optimistic outcomes for all participants is termed R7 collaborative advantage. R8 Collaboration takes place in complex situations that are filled with ambiguity, R9 uncertainty and conflicting environments (Huxham, 1996; Pitsis et al., 2004; Vaaland, R10 2004; Van Marrewijk, 2005). To generate collaboration in such a context, participants R11 are required to translate and negotiate the different work practices and cultures that are R12 brought together. Differences in national, organizational and professional culture can R13 aggravate collaboration in project organizations because seemingly straightforward R14 practices and assumptions may be carried out quite differently in other organizations R15 (Huxham, 1996). While many scholars recognize that collaboration is a key element R16 in project management research, it is surprising that much of the research on projects R17 does not stress the importance of partners bringing their own cultural perspectives R18 to the organization. Sackman and Friesl (Sackmann & Friesl, 2007) argue that “when R19 people join a project team, their individual identities are still rooted in the various R20 home organizations, their profession and other groupings that they take part of in R21 their life.” Hence, in this form of working together, actors enter an arena in which R22 they need to combine their cultures and work practices, and let go of some of their R23 traditional beliefs and methods. R24 Various academic scholars have indicated that collaboration between different R25 partners is a critical factor for successful project outcomes (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; R26 Cooke-Davies, 2002; Vaaland, 2004; Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). Mega R27 projects, even those in Mayan times, always require the need to combine skills, R28 knowledge and expertise, and collaboration is the strongest formula to succeed. R29 In fact, collaboration in mega projects is inevitable; representatives from numerous R30 organizations have to work together during the execution of a project, even though R31 they might be competitors in other work environments (Leufkens & Noorderhaven, R32 2010; Van Marrewijk, 2005). Besides their temporary nature, project organizations R33 R34

50 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

consist of complex patterns of interactions between its various partners, each R1 guided by their own established ideas and distinct practices (Bresnen & Marshall, R2 2011; Engwall, 2003; Grabher, 2002; Van Marrewijk et al., 2008). Moreover, each R3 partner has its distinctive interests and its own perspectives on the interests of other R4 participants in the project. Although tasks, means and goals may not be clearly R5 defined at the start of a project, partners mutually rely on each other (Dietrich et R6 al., 2010). Such contradictions and tensions, as well as those of a deeper nature like R7 culture, behaviors and interactions, can jeopardize collaborative efforts within project R8 organizations (Josserand, Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis, 2004). Also, the temporality of R9 a project can decrease the commitment of partners involved to focus on collaboration R10 in the project organization (Leufkens & Noorderhaven, 2010). Thus, collaboration R11 between partners from different (national, organizational and professional) cultures R12 adds another layer of complexity to projects and the management of projects. Being R13 the strongest relationship between organizations, collaboration often appears to be R14 most difficult to achieve. Significant examples of problems of inter-organizational R15 collaboration in project organizations are portrayed in the construction sector. Being R16 criticized for its insufficient project performance, lack of integration, confrontational R17 attitudes, and its pronounced blame culture, the construction sector is obliged to R18 strongly focus on extensive inter-organizational collaboration (Dietrich et al., 2010; R19 Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011; Veenswijk & Berendse, 2008). R20 Existing research on collaboration in projects often focuses on elements that R21 can enhance a collaborative relationship between partners. Pitsis et al. (2004), for R22 example, reveal essential building blocks for inter-organizational synthesis. Themes R23 as trust, leadership, culture, contract and power capture synthesis, and, according to R24 the authors, only through synthesis organizations can survive, succeed and innovate R25 in complex project environments (Pitsis et al., 2004). In addition, Cicmil and Marshall R26 (2005) studied a procedure called ‘two-stage tendering’, which aims to improve R27 team integration in the construction sector. They discover that this procedure is R28 insufficient to solve problems evolving around contradictions between partners, R29 adversarial cultures and the lack of collaboration over time (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005). R30 Furthermore, Dietrich et al. (2010) determine several factors influencing collaboration R31 in the multi-partner projects. Based on earlier empirical studies on collaboration and R32 R33 R34

51 Chapter 2

R1 knowledge integration they reveal eight factors that have a direct influence on the quality of collaboration, among those are trust between actors, commitment to the R3 project, cultural proximity and expectations (Dietrich et al., 2010). However, scholars rarely address how project participants manage their efforts for collaboration, nor do R5 they reveal how the characteristics of the project organization shape the actors’ daily R6 interactions (Jones & Lichtenstein, 2008). Thus, the suggestion to seek for insights R7 in practices of collaboration (Hibbert & Huxham, 2010), and the call for more in- R8 depth research on the dynamics of collaboration in project organizations (Bresnen & R9 Marshall, 2011), are in place. Besides, since little is known about the cultural diversity R10 and its intended and unintended consequences to the micro level of mega projects R11 (Ainamo, Artto, Levitt, Orr, Scott, & Tainio, 2010), implementing the debate on R12 cross-cultural management can enhance our understanding of cultural complexity in R13 project organizations. R14 R15 Cross-Cultural Management Research R16 R17 The field of cross-cultural management is generally divided into three streams of R18 research, each with their own interpretation of the concept culture (Boyacigiller et R19 al., 2004; Sackmann & Philips, 2004). The first stream, labeled as ‘cross-national R20 comparison’ (CNC), associates culture directly with nation or country. Research in this R21 stream is guided by the search for universally applicable dimensions that can help R22 managers in dealing with cross-cultural situations (e.g. Hofstede, 1980). Following the R23 positivistic paradigm, research methodologies in this stream are mostly quantitative R24 and large-scale, treating culture as a variable and assuming that someone’s nation R25 or citizenship is the all-embracing source for identification (Boyacigiller et al., 2004; R26 Sackmann & Philips, 2004). This perspective is still the leading approach to cross- R27 cultural management, however, while comparing national cultural levels on a general R28 level, such frameworks lack the ability to explain what happens when people actually R29 meet and interact with each other (Primecz et al., 2011). The assumption that all R30 inhabitants in a nation and all managers and employees in an organization share the R31 same cultural values entails ignorance towards social variation, diversity and power R32 relations among or between nations and organizations (Søderberg & Holden, 2002). R33 R34

52 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

The CNC perspective might reveal cultural differences, but without knowledge on the R1 everyday practice, it fails to explain interactions, cultural clashes or the lack thereof R2 (Primecz et al., 2011). Given these limitations, this view on cultures seems rather R3 limited and may no longer fit the cultural realities that exist in current organizations R4 and projects (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). R5 The second stream in cross-cultural management research, called ‘inter-cultural R6 interaction’, is highly influenced by anthropological researchers who introduced R7 a different perspective on culture (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). The inter-cultural R8 interaction (ICI) perspective views culture as “socially constructed” and recognizes R9 the notion of organizational culture as something that an organization ‘has’, rather R10 than something an organization ‘is’ (Boyacigiller et al., 2004; Smircich, 1983). R11 Following the interpretative paradigm, researchers in this stream believe that R12 reality is socially constructed, which implies that different actors can define reality R13 differently (Boyacigiller et al., 2004). This stream aims to unravel how organizational R14 actors make sense of their social world and how culture is negotiated in their daily R15 interactions. This view on culture has wide implications for the research questions R16 and methods applied in this stream of research. Instead of focusing on comparison, R17 the ICI perspective is interested in bicultural interaction and the impact of culture R18 on the organizational life (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). Furthermore, the methods of R19 choice in this stream are qualitative and ethnographic, providing detailed descriptions R20 of the complexity of everyday organizational life (Boyacigiller et al., 2004; Sackmann R21 & Philips, 2004). An example in this stream of research on cross-cultural management R22 is a study on ‘negotiated culture’ in a German – Japanese joint venture (Brannen R23 & Salk, 2000). Brannen and Salk (2000) found that a newly, negotiated culture R24 evolved in this binational joint venture; a culture that reflects neither of the two R25 national cultures, but a culture that is a mutation of both, containing parts of each R26 incorporated culture as well as some elements of its own making (Brannen & Salk, R27 2000). However, the scholars acknowledge that national cultural traits do not provide R28 a trustworthy forecast for the issues and differences that are likely to emerge when R29 intercultural organizations are formed, and they recognize the need to incorporate R30 situational factors to understand culture formation in an organization (Brannen & R31 Salk, 2000). R32 R33 R34

53 Chapter 2

R1 Due to developments such as technological advances (e.g. the Internet), the ever- growing global workforces and changes in the political, economical and societal R3 context, a third stream in cross-cultural management research emerged: the multiple cultures perspective (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). Followers of this stream agree that R5 in this multicultural society people can no longer be recognized only by their national R6 citizenship or country of origin (Boyacigiller et al., 2004; Jacob, 2005; Sackmann & R7 Philips, 2004; Søderberg & Holden, 2002). Culture does not equal to nation, it is seen R8 as a bundle of explicit and tacit assumptions commonly held by a group of people, R9 guiding their perceptions, thoughts, feelings and behaviors that, through social R10 interaction, are learned and passed on to new members of the group (Sackmann & R11 Philips, 2004). From this perspective, organizations are recognized as a multiplicity of R12 cultures in which members develop a shared set of assumptions within the organization R13 setting, but simultaneously carry various sets of assumptions acquired outside of the R14 organization (Boyacigiller et al., 2004). Thus, all types of cultural groupings may occur R15 and co-occur within an organizational setting. Research questions and methods in R16 this stream aim to “identify the culture(s) impacting the organization at any given R17 time, around any specific issue, in any particular circumstance, and to any certain R18 degree” (Boyacigiller et al., 2004:131). In this endeavor, researchers try to unravel R19 the insiders’ perspective to understand the social constructions of the central actors R20 in the selected research context, which contributes to the acknowledgement of the R21 inherent complexities, contractions, and paradoxes that cultural realities mean for R22 individuals, groups and organizations (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). R23 Another subsequent perspective in cross-cultural management research is R24 imposed by Jacob (2005), who states that hybridization is a useful point of departure R25 to study cultures in organizations. In line with Boyacigiller et al. (2004), she opts R26 to breakaway from the ‘snapshots of a country’s orientation’ and urges scholars to R27 view countries as a wide variety of cultural mixtures (Jacob, 2005). This perspective R28 identifies cultures as dynamic constructs that change over time as they are shaped and R29 reshaped through interactions with other cultures in which people, reflectively and R30 unreflectively, insert new meanings and practices (Shimoni & Bergmann, 2006). While R31 perceiving the complex interplay between culture and management as a continuous R32 evolving dynamic, this perspective sees people as ‘hybrids’ who simultaneously hold R33 R34

54 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

membership in different cultural groups (Jacob, 2005). Furthermore, this perspective R1 recognizes that the culturally heterogeneous context of countries is reflected in the R2 hybrid practices of actors. Shimoni and Bergmann (2006) underscore that is not R3 sufficient to be aware of the presence of different cultures within the same space, as R4 the multiple culture perspective does, but claim awareness for the new developments R5 achieved through encounters between these cultures. In this line of thought, the R6 world is understood as an arena of cultural negotiation and contestation, in which R7 cultural interactions, translations, borrowing, or mutual enrichment happens (Shimoni R8 & Bergmann, 2006). R9 In order to understand cross-cultural management in practice and to gain deeper R10 insight into how people make sense of this world, researchers in the domain claim R11 that a focus upon interactions and practices in situ is needed (Primecz et al., 2011; R12 Sackmann & Friesl, 2007). Primecz et al. (2011) emphasize that specific attention to R13 the influence of context upon interaction, the significance of interaction, the latent R14 power struggles and many other aspects that influence the practice of cross-cultural R15 management should be highlighted. Also Boyacigiller et al. (2004) underscore that a R16 broader understanding of culture and its consequences in practice can take the field R17 of cross-cultural management forward. Further knowledge on the impact of multiple R18 cultures in a project organization can expand and enrich the skills and practices of R19 participants in dealing with cultural complexity at the various organizational levels, R20 and, it can teach us how to deal with cultural differences so that collaboration R21 between cultural groups can be established (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). However, R22 besides emphasizing on cultural differences, there is an equal need to study the R23 cultural similarities that exist in organizational contexts (Jacob, 2005). Such a dual R24 emphasis can support managers in understanding other cultures, act accordingly and R25 reduce the risk of blunders (Ofori-Dankwa & Ricks, 2000). Thus, the field of cross- R26 cultural management research can be further developed with a focus on how actors R27 deal with and make sense of the cultural differences and similarities they encounter R28 in their everyday life worlds. R29 Following this research angle, project organizations are perceived as carriers of R30 numerous separate, overlapping cultures and project participants are seen as actors R31 who continuously hold membership to some of these cultural groups (Boyacigiller et R32 R33 R34

55 Chapter 2

R1 al., 2004; Shimoni & Bergmann, 2006). In the context of cross-cultural collaboration, where many cultures interact and various organizational routines come together, R3 actors draw on past cultural experiences and develop new understandings and practices that enable them to make sense of and live in a world where change R5 commonly occurs (Boyacigiller et al., 2004; Hibbert & Huxham, 2010). Through R6 repeated interactions, project participants develop new common understandings that R7 reshape and define their collaborative relationship (Philips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2000). R8 Thus, collaboration in a project organization is not just a matter of discarding old R9 meanings and practices, it is more a matter of negotiating new meanings, developing R10 new practices and adjusting existing work processes (Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011). R11 Studying these practices of collaboration can enhance our knowledge on the R12 complexity that underlies collaborative situations and may unravel the practicalities R13 of these situations, of what is actually going on in cross-cultural initiatives (Holden, R14 2008; Huxham, 2003). R15 R16 To Conclude R17 R18 This has been a theoretical chapter about practices of collaboration in mega projects. R19 The argument in this chapter has been that project organizations consist of a variety R20 of cultures, interests and distinct practices that participants bring to their everyday R21 work setting. To understand how cross-cultural collaboration manifests itself in such R22 a temporal, large-scale and complex work environment, a practice-based approach is R23 suggested. With a focus on the daily practices of collaboration this study aims to give R24 insight in the internal dynamics of a project organization. R25 I started the chapter with an overview of the debate on project management R26 research directing towards a deeper understanding of the ‘people’ side of project R27 management. Away from the traditional stream in the project management domain, R28 several scholars claim the field needs to be expanded with perspectives from R29 social sciences (Bresnen et al., 2005a; Dietrich et al., 2010; Van Marrewijk, 2009). R30 Introducing the practice turn in project management research is such a step forward R31 (Blomquist et al., 2010; Bresnen, 2009; Hällgren & Söderholm, 2010; Van Marrewijk R32 et al., 2010). When elaborating on the practice-based approach, I portrayed that this R33 R34

56 Practices of Collaboration in Mega Projects

perspective seeks to explain a specific phenomenon, like collaboration, by studying R1 what people actually do and say. Focused on the micro-level interactions, the practice- R2 based approach is interested in the action and interaction between and among R3 actors and concerned with the details of their everyday work activities (Nicolini et R4 al., 2003a). Practices shape and are shaped by social reality, they are a construction R5 of social interaction, and in this process of interaction practices are translated and R6 negotiated, but also new practices are generated (Geiger, 2009). I emphasized that, R7 in the midst of practicing, a momentary stability occurs in which the reflexive actor, R8 with the available tools, materials and fellow actors, makes sense of the particular set R9 of circumstances presented at that specific moment. In this short period of freeze, R10 practices are iteratively developed as actors instinctively apply their tacit knowledge R11 and previous experiences to the flow of interactions they encounter. Engaging in R12 reflection-in-action, actors try to coherently accommodate new understandings as R13 their webs of beliefs and habits of action are continuously reweaving (Tsoukas & R14 Chia, 2010; Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). The routine practice then gradually changes, R15 extends and provides opportunities for further changes (Tsoukas & Chia, 2010). R16 Hence, I argue that Geiger’s view on practices is too dynamic and loose, as a stable R17 moment is necessary to make sense of the stream of experiences, in which actors can R18 shape and reshape their practices. R19 With the projects-as-practice framework a practice-based approach is R20 incorporated in the field of project management research (Blomquist et al., 2010; R21 Hällgren & Söderholm, 2011). This framework concentrates on what is actually R22 going on in project settings when values, beliefs, experiences and expectations of R23 participants come together and develop around the study of actions and interactions, R24 behaviors and activities of project participants. Moreover, I have portrayed that, in R25 mega projects, collaboration is inevitable. Being the strongest form of relationship R26 between organizations, various scholars argue that collaboration is a key factor in R27 successful project outcomes and plea for more in-depth research on collaboration R28 in project organizations (e.g. Bresnen & Marshall, 2002; Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; R29 Dietrich et al., 2010; Pitsis et al., 2004; Van Marrewijk, 2005). According to Huxham R30 (1996), collaboration in project organizations is intensified by differences in national, R31 professional and organizational cultures as practices and assumptions in the temporary R32 R33 R34

57 Chapter 2

R1 organization might be carried out differently than in other organizations. Little is known about how project participants deal with collaboration or about how the R3 characteristics of the project organization shape the actors’ daily interactions (Jones & Lichtenstein, 2008). To gain understanding about cross-cultural collaboration in R5 project organizations, I therefore included the debate on cross-cultural management R6 research. Following the multiple-culture perspective, this study sees organizations as R7 a multiplicity of cultures in which members develop a shared set of assumptions with R8 the organizational setting, but at the same time take various sets of assumptions R9 outside of the organization (Boyacigiller et al., 2004). Organizational members are R10 seen as “hybrids” that simultaneously hold membership in different cultural groups R11 (Jacob, 2005). Interestingly, also scholars in the cross-cultural management domain R12 indicate the need for a focus upon interactions and practices in situ (Primecz et al., R13 2011; Sackmann & Friesl, 2007). R14 Bringing these developments together, I follow Bresnen and Marshall’s (2011) R15 argument stating that a deeper understanding of cross-cultural collaboration in R16 projects can be obtained by examining how everyday practices are translated R17 and negotiated into new practices. With a practice lens, I focus on practices of R18 collaboration and aim to give insight into the internal dynamics around the cultural R19 complexity that occurs in a project organization. Before moving to the empirical data R20 I will describe the way this ethnographic research has been designed and conducted, R21 and portray a picture of the research setting under study. R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

58 Chapter 3

Ethnography in Practice Chapter 3

R1 In this chapter I will describe the methodological choices and strategies for my research on the practices of collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. R3 This methodological chapter provides a framework for understanding how data was gathered and analyzed, and, how the process of writing developed. Following R5 chapter one, which gave insight into the research problem and formulated the R6 research question, chapter two provided the presentation of this academic study with R7 a theoretical framework. In this third chapter I explain the philosophical grounding R8 of the research design to clarify my account on the social world and on how we R9 should study this world. I describe the process of gaining access to the Panama Canal R10 Expansion Program, followed by a description of the ethnographic research methods R11 undertaken in this project. Next, I elaborate on the process of generating, analyzing R12 and writing up the data. To conclude this chapter, I present a detailed account on R13 my background and personal experiences reflecting on my role as a researcher in this R14 study. R15 R16 Knowledge Claim R17 R18 An incredible number of choices are involved in crafting a research design. In R19 bringing the research question, methodology and methods together, these choices R20 guide the work that the researcher carries out. This study’s search for practices of R21 collaboration in the everyday life world of project participants leads to ontological R22 and epistemological assumptions supporting ethnographic research. Concerned with R23 what there is to know about the world, ontological questions deal with whether R24 or not social reality exists independently of human conceptions and interpretations; R25 whether there is a shared reality; and whether or not social behavior is guided by R26 generalizable ‘laws’ (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Epistemology is connected with ways R27 of knowing and learning about the social world and addresses questions about the R28 basis of our knowledge and how we can know about reality (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). R29 Determining how one studies the social world, a broad range of methodological R30 approaches can be found. Among others, positivism, social constructionism and R31 critical realism are three overarching philosophies of science (Alvesson & Sköldberg, R32 2010). In their search to understand human behavior, the three approaches follow R33 R34

60 Ethnography in Practice

quite different beliefs concerning the assumptions, foundations and implications of R1 science. For a long time, positivism, which refers to forms of research that rest on realist R2 ontology and objectivist epistemology assumptions, was the dominating philosophy R3 of science (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010). In this approach, the social world consists R4 of facts that already exist and are observable; the researcher‘s task is to classify, R5 operationalize and measure social phenomena abstracted from their context to make R6 precise and statistical assessments (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). In contrast to R7 positivism, social constructionism3 perceives reality as something that human beings R8 are socially constructing and, as such, inspired many streams in social sciences R9 (Yanow, 2006). In this approach, the social nature of reality is not seen as something R10 naturally given, but rather constructed through the interactions between people and R11 their intersubjective interpretations. Here, the metaphor ‘construction’ is misleading R12 because construction refers to a deliberate activity, while social constructions, R13 especially in the sense of social constructionism, are not planned activities (Alvesson & R14 Sköldberg, 2010). Yet, the term suggests that natural phenomena are not just social, R15 but intentionally planned or manipulatively created: they are human fabrications, and R16 the disclosure of these fabrications is an important aspect of social constructionism R17 (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010). Research building upon this philosophy is mostly R18 interested in how the construction of reality is carried out and provides conceptual R19 grounding for interpretive methods (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010; Yanow, 2006). R20 Social constructionists belief that all our knowledge is socially constructed, while for R21 positivists, knowledge is based on factual data. Critical realism, on the other hand, R22 shares ground with both positivism and social constructionism as it builds upon the R23 idea that there is a world independent of human beings and that deep structures in R24 this world can be represented by scientific theories (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010). R25 Radically different from positivism and social constructionism, however, is that critical R26 realism not only aims to explain reality, but also wants to change it. R27 R28 R29

3 There is a certain linguistic confusion about the concepts ‘social constructionism’ and ‘social R30 constructivism’ (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010). In some fields of inquiry one of the terms is dominant, R31 while other fields use the terms interchangeably. In this study I have chosen to follow ‘social constructionism’ as represented in the work on The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and R32 Luckmann (1966). R33 R34

61 Chapter 3

R1 In this study, my approach to research fits within the community that articulates a constructionist ontological and interpretive epistemological scholarship. From R3 this perspective, social realities are perceived as actively constructed, culturally and historically contingent, laden with moral, public and personal values; and with the R5 researcher as an active participant in the process of social construction (Schwartz- R6 Shea & Yanow, 2012; Ybema et al., 2009). These philosophical underpinnings about R7 social realities logically hold particular methodological positions. In their recently R8 published book, Schwartz-Sea and Yanow explain the constructionist-interpretivist R9 methodology, commonly referred to as “interpretive” research, as follows: R10 R11 [It] rests on a belief in the existence of (potentially) multiple, intersubjectively R12 constructed “truths” about social, political, cultural, and other human events; R13 and on the belief that these understandings can only be accessed, or co- R14 generated, through interactions between researcher and researched as they seek R15 to interpret those events and make those interpretations legible to each other R16 (2012:4) R17 R18 Meaning making is the essence of interpretive research. Researchers seek to grasp the R19 concepts and meanings of the actors under study and aim to understand how actors R20 make sense of their worlds. And since sense-making is always context dependent, R21 interpretive research is concerned with contextuality (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). R22 Paying close attention to institutional context, historical background, power relations R23 and societal discourses contributes to understanding the ways in which actors make R24 sense of a situation. As such, in interpretive research it is required to emphasize R25 both the individual and collective meanings that actors attribute to specific situations R26 (Duijnhoven, 2010). R27 Central to the interpretive approach is that researchers are in the field -up close R28 and in person- to discover the actors’ daily practices and to observe and interview their R29 respondents’ lived experiences. However, the researcher’s ‘repertoire of interpretations’ R30 limits the possibility of making certain interpretations, as some interpretations are R31 given priority over others, and other interpretations do not even appear possible R32 (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010:273). As a result, researchers in this community need R33 R34

62 Ethnography in Practice

to be reflexive about their personal meaning making processes (Ybema et al, 2009; R1 Schwartz-Sea & Yanow, 2006). Reflexivity here means that the different kinds of R2 linguistic, social, political and theoretical elements that are interwoven in the process R3 of knowledge creation are taken into account. This, according to Shehata (2006), R4 entails the researcher being self-conscious about her role as ‘positioned subject’ in R5 the field. Being personally reflexive, as a specified version of being reflective, involves R6 introspection: a deep inward gaze into the study (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010). This R7 calls for the utmost awareness of how the researcher’s idiosyncratic characteristics, R8 the importance of language and prejudice, the research community and society as R9 a whole impact the scientific endeavor. The idea behind reflexive interpretation is R10 to depict these aspects more clearly in the research process and the presentation R11 of the study. Weick (1999) points out that a limited notion of reflexivity can lead to R12 narcissism, self-indulgence, and paralysis. He warns that “attention to self-as-theorist R13 can become a drag on theory development, when that attention becomes an end R14 in itself” (Weick, 2002: 893). Reflexivity, thus, is not about making the researcher R15 central to the study. It, however, allows the researcher to delineate the ways in R16 which very specific instances of their personality affect their research accounts and R17 the knowledge they generate on the bases of those accounts; reflexivity, therefore, R18 strengthens the researcher’s personal responsibility for the study (Humphreys, 2005; R19 Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). R20 R21 Organizational Ethnography R22 R23 The constructionist-interpretive methodology of this study informs various methods, R24 or particular tools, through which research can be carried out or enacted (Schwartz- R25 Shea & Yanow, 2012). Following this study’s aim to gain an insiders’ perspective and R26 understand how project participants make sense of collaboration in their everyday R27 work life, an ethnographic approach was most suitable. Ethnography requires the R28 researcher to be there, at the scene under study, to participate in the life world of R29 her respondents, to built a relationship with them and to come to understand the R30 common sense, everyday, spoken and unspoken, tacitly known ‘rules’ to be part of R31 that environment (Ybema et al., 2009). Adopted from anthropology, as the study R32 R33 R34

63 Chapter 3

R1 of (sub) cultures, ethnographic research methods have been used in sociology as well (Van Maanen, 1988). In organization studies, using ethnography to unravel the R3 intricacies of everyday organizational life is not a new approach either. In the 1920s and 1930s the Hawthorne studies applied, besides their quantitative point of departure, R5 ethnographic research methods to find out whether employees would become more R6 productive in higher or lower levels of light at their workplace (Roethlisberger & R7 Dickson, 1939). Much later, after a shift towards quantitative research methods such R8 as survey research and statistical analyses, towards the 1980s, qualitative methods R9 like ethnographic research received renewed attention in the study of organizations R10 (Barley & Kunda, 2001; Ybema et al., 2009). R11 Equally to ethnography, the aim of organizational ethnography is to study social R12 and cultural phenomena in action, but specifically in an organizational setting. R13 Since the complexity of everyday organizational life and social interaction cannot R14 be reduced to sterile experiments having control over its variables, ethnographers R15 go out in the field to gain more understanding of how people make sense of social R16 reality. With a particular focus on the extraordinary-in-the-ordinary, its purpose is R17 to grasp, in specific situations, “how work is organized and how that organizing R18 organizes people” (Ybema et al., 2009:1). With an ‘anthropological frame of R19 mind’, the organizational ethnographer needs to be modest and open to the new R20 worlds and new meanings, and should have the “constant urge to problematize, R21 to turn what seems familiar and understandable upside down and inside out” R22 (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992:73). Scholars in organization studies, with various R23 disciplinary backgrounds, have increasingly applied ethnographic research methods R24 to a variety of organizational settings (Van Marrewijk, 2010a). The anthropologist R25 Orr (1996, 2006), for example, followed service technicians for copier machines to R26 understand their work practices and how they talk about their work. Kunda (1992) R27 conducted ethnographic fieldwork to explore how culture was used and experienced R28 by members of the engineering division of a high-tech corporation. Furthermore, R29 different from a technological environment, the sociologist Fine (1996) produced a R30 rich portrait of the life of kitchen workers. Another form of organizing was studied by R31 Venkatesh (2008), who immersed himself in the everyday life of a gang, and Mears R32 R33 R34

64 Ethnography in Practice

(2011) who, while working as a model, gathered an insiders’ account of the fashion R1 industry.4 R2 Organizational ethnography typically involves prolonged observation over R3 time, engaging with what people do and how they talk about what they do, while R4 being sensitive to how actors make sense of and give sense to the organizational R5 context (Ybema et al., 2009). Ethnographic research combines the fieldwork R6 methods interviewing, observation and the close reading of documentary resources, R7 which are key in the interpretive tradition of social sciences (Van der Waal, 2009). R8 Other characteristics of organizational ethnography are found in its potential to R9 highlight emotional and political aspects of the work setting and to describe the R10 wide variety of voices and interpretations about this everyday organizational life. R11 Furthermore, related to the interpretative research’s goal of building context-sensitive R12 knowledge and to the acknowledgement that scholars have a personal repertoire of R13 interpretations, the researcher’s ‘positionality’ is vital (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012; R14 Ybema et al., 2009). Ethnographers need to proactively reflect on their own meaning R15 making processes and describe their personal characteristics as these contribute to R16 generating access to research situations, or block them, and can shape and affect the R17 data generation, analyses, and its subsequent knowledge claims (Schwartz-Shea & R18 Yanow, 2012). R19 The product of ethnographic research is a written account that gives readers the R20 sense of ‘being there’ (Bate, 1997). Through thick descriptions the researcher conveys R21 actually having been there, while such a detailed account also makes the reader R22 feel he or she has been at the scene. Nicolini’s (2009) metaphorical movement of R23 ‘zooming in’ and ‘zooming out’ of the research field illustrates that no ethnography is R24 written in a vacuum (Van Maanen, 1988). In fact, it highlights the iterative alternation R25 between the researcher’s closeness to the actors and their practices and her distance R26 to recognize how these practices are immersed in a thick texture of connections R27 (Nicolini, 2009). The interpretive ethnographer writes her account in an “intelligible R28 and transparent style to stimulate the readers to actively engage in the interpretation R29 of processes of human behavior and knowledge generation” (Duijnhoven, 2010:61). R30 Hence, by conveying qualities of familiarity of the persons under study and their ways R31 R32 4 An more elaborate bibliography is presented by Yanow and Geuijen (2009), who applied three criteria for a work to be an organizational ethnography: method, writing and sensibility. R33 R34

65 Chapter 3

R1 of knowing and doing in a certain context, an ethnography is more like a window into the everyday experiences of organizational actors than that it is a page in a R3 book (Bate, 1997). Based on a countless amount of strategic choices, like how to present the data, what voice to select and what quotations to use, the writing style R5 in this book closely links with what Van Maanen (1988) termed ‘confessional tales’. R6 This style of writing is distinguished by stories about gaining access to the field, R7 fables of fieldwork rapport, mini melodramas of hardships endured (and overcome), R8 and accounts of how fieldwork affected the researcher and vice versa (Van Maanen, R9 1988). Consequently, this writing style demands reflexivity. As a means of enhancing R10 the representational richness and reflexivity of this qualitative study, reflexive R11 personal vignettes provide insight in the researcher’s idiosyncratic taken-for-granted R12 understandings of the social world (Humphreys, 2005). Such transparency lays bare R13 any fallacies or pitfalls that might have surfaced during the study, but it also results in R14 higher quality research material and a sharper focus on the phenomena under study R15 (Van Marrewijk et al., 2010). R16 As portrayed above, conducting ethnographic research is very much a personal R17 process and demands personal authority. It is therefore highly important to offer an R18 “idiosyncratic mode of sense-making” (Chia, 1996:56) that includes a transparent R19 and rich explanation of the steps taken and the choices made. As much as possible, I R20 will do so in the following paragraphs. First, I will elaborate on how the research case R21 was selected and accessed. I will then describe my research practices, followed by an R22 account on the process of analyzing and writing up the data. In the last paragraph I R23 will look back on my role as a researcher in the entire process. R24 R25 Selection of and Access to a Mega Project R26 R27 In search for a case that would allow me to study the practices of collaboration in R28 an infrastructural project organization, I started with an online search. Since I had R29 adopted an interpretive approach and the ethnographic research methodology in R30 particular, only a small number of cases could be studied. One mega project would R31 be sufficient, as it consists of various separate research cases and can deliver an R32 overwhelming set of data. However, the mega project should be under construction R33 R34

66 Ethnography in Practice

during the fieldwork period, between July 2009 and July 2010. I did not aim to study R1 practices of collaboration in retrospect nor was it my intention to study a project R2 that had not passed its kick-off date yet. Furthermore, I searched for projects that R3 a) contained international partners, b) I could obtain access to and c) allowed a R4 longitudinal study suitable for the research budget. Ten mega projects ended on a R5 short list (see Table 3.1). R6 R7 Table 3.1 Short-list of mega projects R8 # Name Project Description Location R9 1. Galileo Development of an European navigation Noordwijk, R10 satellite Netherlands 2. North/South Line Construction a new metro line in Amsterdam, R11 Amsterdam. Netherlands R12 3. Maasvlakte 2 A land reclamation project to construct a Rotterdam, new port adjoining the Maasvlakte. Netherlands R13 4. NUON Energy Construction of a new energy station. Groningen, R14 Station Netherlands R15 5. Caofeidian New Development of an ecological coastal city Caofeidian, Coastal City in Northern China China R16 6. Panama Canal Expansion of the current Panama Canal Panama City, R17 Expansion Program with the building of a new set of locks. Panama R18 7. Fehmarn Bridge Construction of a bridge over the Fehmarn Germany - Belt to connect Germany and Denmark Denmark R19 8. Palm Islands Construction of the three largest artificial Dubai, United R20 islands in the world. Arab Emirates R21 9. Sheringham Shoal Construction of the UK’s fourth largest off Norfolk, shore wind farm. United Kingdom R22 10. Export Gateway Deepening the navigation channel to the Melbourne, R23 Port of Melbourne Australia R24 R25 To further the selection of the research case, three principles were taken into R26 account. The first principle was the location of the mega project. My supervisors and R27 I had discussed the possibilities to study a project outside of the Netherlands and R28 I was open to that opportunity. Following Hodgon & Muzio (2011), we preferred R29 projects outside of Anglo-Saxon economies, and in a region where mega projects R30 had been insufficiently explored in the literature. Due to this principle, the projects R31 in the Netherlands as well as those executed and studied in the UK, Scandinavia R32 R33 R34

67 Chapter 3

R1 and Australia were erased from the short list. The second principle in the selection process was of a more practical concern; the spoken language in the mega project R3 should be one that I master or could quickly acquire. Conducting an ethnographic study in an environment where one does not understand the local language well R5 enough to capture verbal communication, such as informal conversations, makes R6 the process of gathering data extremely complicated. As a result, the mega project R7 in China was deleted from the short list. The third principle involved accessibility and R8 acceptability. Ethnographic studies require that, at least in principle, the researcher is R9 granted access to all actors, meetings and documents. Furthermore, it is important R10 that the researcher can be accepted in the society under study and is allowed to R11 move around freely in the daily project environment. As we could not guarantee R12 this would be the case in Dubai, mainly because we had no contacts there, that R13 project was also erased from the short list. One of my academic supervisors did R14 have strong connections contact with the Dutch Ministry of Public Works and Water R15 Management (Rijkwaterstaat, further abbreviated as RWS), a company that has a R16 knowledge-sharing relationship with the Autoridád del Canal de Panamá (Panama R17 Canal Authority, further abbreviated as ACP). I visited my supervisor’s contact at R18 RWS and received contact details from his connections working in the Panama Canal R19 Expansion Program. An extensive email exchange on the research topic and the R20 practicalities around this study finally resulted in green light to conduct my research R21 at the Panama Canal Expansion Program. Also, I remained in contact with RWS as R22 they included me in their knowledge-exchange program with the ACP5. R23 The Panama Canal Expansion Program met all three principles for the selection R24 of the research case: the project is located outside of the Netherlands and based R25 in an area (Central America) where only few mega projects have been conducted R26 or studied before. The project language is English and my, at the start of the R27 fieldwork, intermediate level of Spanish would be convenient in the Spanish speaking R28 Panamanian society. The ACP had granted access to its actors and documents, and R29 agreed to provide me with a workstation and other facilities needed. R30 R31

R32 5 Besides their support for obtaining access in project organization, RWS was not involved in the R33 research nor did RWS play a financial role in this study. R34

68 Ethnography in Practice

Obtaining Access R1 On July 8, 2009, I arrived in Panama. A few days later I had my first day in the office of R2 the Panama Canal Expansion Program, located in building 739 at the ACP compound R3 in Corozal Oeste in Panama City. Before coming to Panama I had been in contact with R4 the Environmental Department of the Expansion Program, but soon after my arrival R5 I discovered that their expectations were different than my research intentions. They R6 hoped I would study the local communities and how the Expansion Program and the R7 changes around the Panama Canal affected them, while my main interest was on the R8 internal dynamics of the project organization. Nevertheless, I was warmly welcomed R9 and learned much from the department’s employees about the ACP organization, R10 the plans for expanding the waterway and their perspectives on the whole. I was R11 often invited for field visits and enjoyed exploring the project with my respondents. R12 The environmental engineers took me under their wings. They helped me through R13 the bureaucratic process of organizing my formal access to the project organization R14 (it took us two weeks to get an ID card and an email address), they supported me in R15 finding a place to stay and they introduced me to their colleagues in Building 739. I R16 joined them for lunch, was taken to the Administration Building (ACP headquarters), R17 received tours on the project sites and was asked to help them with some translation R18 work. Friendships were built. R19 As part of the process to receive an ACP identification card, I was asked to sign a R20 Student Agreement and had to deliver various documents proving that I was affiliated R21 with VU University, who my supervisor was and how I was covered by insurance R22 during my stay in Panama. As a result of this process, I was perceived as a student R23 within the ACP. At first, that did not seem to be a problem, but after a few weeks it R24 became apparent that this status would not give me access to the respondents that R25 I wished to speak to. An example from my research journal portrays that I felt stuck: R26 R27 My talk with [my contact person] was not motivating at all. I learned that doors R28 are kept closed and that I won’t get access to the management level. [My contact R29 person] tells me that I should keep an eye out for [the program director]’s car. R30 If that is parked at the back entrance of the building, I have to tell [my contact R31 person] so that he, if there is time (I doubt it) can go and see whether [the R32 R33 R34

69 Chapter 3

R1 program director] wants to meet me. In addition, when I proposed to go to building 740 (where more people work on the Expansion Program, it’s located R3 across the street), [my contact person] tells me that I first need to write a formal document to ask for an appointment. Argh! It makes me angry, if [my contact R5 person] would just allow me to call the persons that I wish to meet, I’m sure I can R6 get to an appointment, or something…. I think [my contact person] felt that I’m R7 upset, but he just nods… What should I do? (August 2009, Research Journal) R8 R9 This excerpt from my research journal illustrates that my patience was put to the R10 test. I had been within the project organization for six weeks only and I felt I was not R11 making any progress. However, I had explored the project sites, learned more about R12 the company and familiarized myself with the organization and its employees. A few R13 weeks later, when RWS visited the ACP for various knowledge-exchange workshops, R14 the doors to my research field actually opened. I was invited to be part of workshops R15 and arrived at the office wearing a suit. The ACP employees noticed my change of R16 attire and made remarks like: “wow, you are part of the delegation, the important R17 people…” (Rosa, Informal conversation, September 2009) and “What? You are not R18 a student?” (Gilbert, Informal conversation, September 2009), were often heard that R19 day. The employees that I had wanted to speak to for the last months attended the R20 workshops and heard about my research focus; some gave me their business cards, R21 while others actually invited me to meet them in their office. At a welcoming party R22 for RWS, the ACP Program Director asked me in a friendly manner: “Were they hiding R23 you in the basement?” (Informal conversation, September 2009), stating his surprise R24 for meeting me only two months after my entrance to the organization. Attending R25 these workshops proved to be very fruitful, as I wrote in my research journal: “I feel R26 my status has changed, I am accepted” (September 2009). R27 Slowly, the contact with the Environmental Department dissolved. I had now R28 access to the project from various angles and I was allowed to attend the weekly R29 Third Set of Locks Project Management Team meetings as an observer. Now that R30 access was secured, my presence became more legitimate and I was left to my own R31 devices. That was exactly what worked best for me. I regularly visited the project R32 site offices, started to schedule interviews and became acquainted with more ACP R33 R34

70 Ethnography in Practice

personnel and CH2M Hill consultants. At the same time, the Dutch Embassy helped R1 me to gain access to Grupo Unidos por el Canal (further abbreviated as GUPC). This R2 consortium, consisting of the companies Sacyr, Impregilo, Jan de Nul and CUSA, R3 had just won the tender for the design and construction of the Third Set of Locks R4 project. My contact person was interested in my study and connected me with R5 GUPC’s Project Director, who quickly gave me a green light to conduct my research R6 within the consortium. Since GUPC was a contractor for the ACP, I could have asked R7 ACP to support me with access to the project organization of GUPC, but to assure R8 my impartiality I deliberately chose the path of asking for the assistance of the Dutch R9 embassy. From October 2009 I had access to all main parties in the Third Set of Locks R10 Project: the ACP, with the American consultancy firm CH2M Hill as their advisors, and R11 GUPC in the role of contractor. R12 R13 Ethnography in the Field R14 R15 As this study aims to understand the insiders’ perspective and to illustrate the internal R16 dynamics between participants within a project organization and how they deal with R17 collaboration in their everyday work life, the choice for an ethnographic research R18 methodology naturally followed. An important point about an ethnographic study R19 on the practices of collaboration is that it must be done in the situation in which R20 collaboration normally occurs, that is, collaboration must be seen as a situated practice, R21 in which the context is part of the activity (Orr, 1996). Hence, to study practices in their R22 original setting and to understand how project participants experience cross-cultural R23 collaboration, the main research methods have been interviewing and (participant) R24 observation. In addition to the observations and conversations, a document study R25 provided different kinds of data to the study. Together, these methods allowed me to R26 capture a broad understanding of the project participants’ perceptions and their daily R27 practices of collaboration. R28 The fieldwork period took place from July 2009 until July 2010. As described R29 above, I obtained access to all central parties of the project organization, that is, R30 the management had allowed me to conduct my study in their work field. However, R31 obtaining access to the various groups inside the project was another hurdle. I had to R32 R33 R34

71 Chapter 3

R1 negotiate access in different groups, and although that went more smoothly within the ACP after the visit of RWS, gaining access within GUPC appeared much more R3 difficult. In the first months of the fieldwork it was important to be seen, to be talked about and to be recognized. I was recognized easily, as one CH2M Hill manager R5 remarked when we met: “Ah, you are that blond girl with the red backpack that I R6 saw walking to the ACP the other day!” (Fieldnotes, September 2009). The manager R7 immediately knew that I was a stranger: I had blond hair, which is not often seen in R8 Latin American countries, and I was walking on premises of the ACP, a place where R9 people drive to go from A to B, even if walking would be faster. From July to December R10 2009 I spent all my time within the ACP and CH2M Hill. During those months GUPC R11 was establishing itself in the country and the project. The transformation (from tender R12 phase to execution phase) was ongoing and project execution was commencing. R13 GUPC brought employees from Europe and hired various expats from all over the R14 world; in such a variety of persons I did not stand out. Since most employees had R15 seen me in the organization from when they arrived, they assumed I was part of their R16 company. From January to July 2010 I was mainly present in GUPC’s offices and more R17 employees learned about my background and research intentions. Throughout these R18 months I continued visiting the ACP and CH2M Hill to make sure our relation stayed R19 in tact. Table 3.2 provides an overview of my presence in the research field. R20 R21 Table 3.2 Overview of presence in the research field R22 Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 R23 ACP / CH2M Hill R24 GUPC R25 fulltime R26 parttime R27 occasionally R28 R29 Receiving a green light is just the start of doing research. From this point onwards R30 it is necessary to get to know your respondents and they need to get to know you. R31 I accepted almost every invitation that came from the friendships created, which R32 led me to fancy dinners with diplomats as much as to Friday afternoon drinks in R33 R34

72 Ethnography in Practice

a dark underground bar. During office hours, I tried my best to assimilate and fit R1 in the community. I learned that many people would bring lunch to the office, so R2 I started to do the same. At midday, I would arrive in a canteen full of people and R3 stick around until the last person had left; there was always somebody to talk to. R4 Others would usually go out for lunch, so after a while I started to join this group R5 of employees. This assimilation allowed me to get to know respondents personally, R6 and sometimes we would meet someone that was also working for the ACP or the R7 Expansion Program (Panama is a small country), which often led to a new respondent R8 in my study. Furthermore, I made sure my presence was known. I was there according R9 the ACP office hours, from 7.15 am to 4.15 pm, and regularly visited the project R10 offices on site. Visiting a site started with organizing a way to get there and thinking R11 about whom I could ask for a ride to travel to the project site. As I had been present R12 in the Project Management Team meetings I would usually ask the project manager R13 of the office I wished to visit for a ride. He would either offer to pick me up in the R14 morning or organize a ride for me. These car rides provided me with first insights R15 on the project or with a chat on the personal experiences of the project participant. R16 After arrival at the project office I was usually left at the receptionist who would take R17 care of me. I was shown around the office, introduced to its employees and given a R18 space to work from. R19 I started by just being in the office. At the ACP offices I was provided a desktop R20 and a cubicle, at GUPC there was always a desk that I could use to work from my R21 laptop, and with that came the first contacts with my respondents. I began by initiating R22 extensive interviews in a conversational style. In these interviews I learned about the R23 Expansion Program, the ins and outs of the organization and the respondents’ own R24 perspective on the whole. I became part of several groups in the project organization R25 and developed a number of friends who invited me to be part of their social lives. R26 I also made an appearance at numerous public activities that the ACP organized: R27 presentations, special events (such as Día del Niño Canalero6), sport activities and R28 training sessions. With the friends I made, both in the ACP, CH2M Hill and GUPC, I R29 was invited to more private parties, such as dinners, birthday parties and weekend R30 outings. However, questions and comments about my position and intentions were R31 R32 6 The Canal’s Children’s Day is organized on a yearly basis and invites children from all over the country to come and see, learn and explore the Panama Canal. R33 R34

73 Chapter 3

R1 inevitable and there have been occasions in which I felt I had to defend myself. I recall one meeting in the GUPC organization, a staff meeting, which I described in R3 my research journal as follows:

R5 When Jack and I enter the meeting room, some people are seated already. R6 It’s about 4.30pm and the meeting should start as soon as the management R7 team arrives. We take seats at the large meeting table, next to Annabelle, who R8 immediately is protesting against my presence. ‘You can not use this’, she says. R9 ‘You cannot write about this. In fact, you should not be here!’ I’m surprised about R10 her comments, but Jack gestures I should not reply. He is seated in between R11 Annabelle and me, turns his back to her and starts to talk to me: ‘just ignore the R12 lady, she always has something to complain.’ When the Program Leader enters R13 the room and sees me, he nods. I take it as an approval for being present at the R14 meeting. (Research Journal, June 2010) R15 R16 This ‘auto ethnographic vignette’ (Humphreys, 2005), a personal story illustrating R17 the researcher in the social context, exemplifies I was taken by surprise about the R18 remark that I was not supposed to observe the meeting. At that moment, I had R19 been studying GUPC’s project organization for about six months, I had interviewed R20 Annabelle extensively and was present in earlier staff meetings as well. Furthermore, R21 comments like “are you spying on me?” (Celso, informal conversation, April 2010) R22 or “are you picking my brain again?” (Sergio, informal conversation February 2010) R23 could not be avoided. The following excerpt from my research journal shows how I R24 dealt with such comments. R25 R26 Bart stated: “Karen is doing a study on interpersonal relationships in this project R27 for VU University in Amsterdam. And she’s always hoping that I will tell her R28 something, but I wisely keep my mouth shut.” We all laughed and I replied R29 saying that this too is information. (Fieldnotes, May 2010) R30 R31 In this situation, the person, with whom I had a good relationship, introduced me R32 to colleagues of his home organization. Like in this situation, and many others, a R33 R34

74 Ethnography in Practice

laugh or a joke clarified tense situations. In some other occasions I had to deal with R1 such comments more seriously, ranging from lengthy explanations about my research R2 intentions to writing a detailed interview request. Compared to the ACP and CH2M R3 Hill employees, it cost me more time to win trust among GUPC respondents, which I R4 tried by convincing them that two sides of the coin needed to be studied to provide R5 a holistic account on collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. R6 R7 Interviewing R8 Interviews were conducted with project participants from all levels within the R9 Panama Canal Expansion Program. I conducted interviews with workers, engineers, R10 supervisors, administrative personnel and high level managers to understand their R11 daily practices, their ideas, feelings, experiences and beliefs about collaboration, the R12 project, and other issues they believed were important to discuss. With the permission R13 of the respondents, I made audiotapes of the interviews. I always explained to them R14 that with the use of a voice recorder I could focus on what was said instead on what R15 I should be writing down. Anonymity was granted and the voice recorder was put R16 on the table, so that the respondent could see it. One interviewee pressed the pause R17 button during an interview, because he wanted to use a swear word. I noticed that R18 several respondents felt uncomfortable with the voice recorder and therefore might R19 not reveal everything there was to say. In such instances I asked the respondent R20 whether I should take away the recorder, or I would visibly turn it off and ask a few R21 more questions to see whether the respondent then would open up. One person R22 agreed to the use of the voice recorder, but admitted she did not want to see the R23 machine because that would make her nervous. One lawyer made sure to pronounce R24 a disclaimer on the tape before the interview started. Two other respondents did not R25 allow me to record the interview, so I made notes of these conversations. R26 The more formal interviews were conducted in the office of the employee or in R27 a meeting room. Informal interviews took place at the respondents’ workplace or R28 during a car ride when the respondent had to go somewhere or while I was shown R29 around the project site. Also during dinners, at work-related parties such as BBQ’s, R30 going away parties and season festivities, or in more casual settings like weekend R31 outings, carnival celebrations and tourist activities, I was able to gather research data. R32 R33 R34

75 Chapter 3

R1 I always carried my research journal along and sought for private spaces to write down comments and remarks. R3 Typically, interviews had an open character allowing respondents to give a spontaneous insiders account. After a short introduction about the purpose of my R5 research and the interview, I would ask respondents to tell me about their role and R6 responsibility in the project organization and how they perceived collaboration in R7 their work environment. I would continue asking questions on topics that interested R8 me most and invited the respondent to provide concrete descriptions of practices, R9 scenes or events and his/her own thoughts and feelings (Weiss, 1994). Following R10 my research question, I was mostly interested in stories related to cross-cultural R11 collaboration in their everyday work life. Themes like language use, management R12 style, perception of time, work attitude and trust in collaboration surfaced from the R13 data. Reflecting the cumulative process of interviews, these topics were related to R14 issues that previously caught my attention. R15 Out of a total of eighty-five interviews, three were not recorded. Table 3.3 gives R16 a detailed overview of the amount of interviews per case. R17 R18 Table 3.3 Amount of interviews per organization R19 Organization Interviews R20 ACP 28 CH2M Hill 19 R21 Sacyr 5 R22 Impregilo 5 Jan de Nul 6 R23 CUSA 3 R24 GUPC 19* R25 Total 85 R26 * This number reflects the interviewees who were not affiliated with any of the home organizations, but had a contract with GUPC. R27 R28 Following the project’s official language, interviews were conducted in English. R29 However, it turned out that during most interviews ‘Spanglish’ (a combination R30 between English and Spanish) was spoken, because many respondents were native R31 Spanish speakers. Four native Dutch speakers were interviewed in the Dutch language. R32 In addition, four interviews were held in Spanish, but, unfortunately, these dialogues R33 did not reach the same level of depth. I transcribed several interview recordings R34

76 Ethnography in Practice

myself, but transcription of the majority of the interviews was outsourced to speed R1 up the process. Since research transcription is different than regular transcription R2 (such as business transcription) I invested some time in writing out a clear set of R3 instructions for the transcriptionist. These instructions included a list of (Panamanian) R4 names and places that often occurred in the interviews and an overview of jargon R5 used by respondents. As the how of what is being said is almost as important as the R6 what, the verbatim style of transcription was required. Besides every word and sound R7 on the recordings, also non-verbal communication such as laughter and pauses had R8 to be transcribed. Furthermore, the transcriptionist signed a confidentiality statement R9 to secure that all material, both recordings and transcripts, were kept confidential R10 and were deleted at the end of the project. To verify the accuracy of the transcripts, R11 I asked the transcriptionist to complete one interview as a test. Due to background R12 noise (mostly caused by heavy trucks passing by) or the respondent’s thick Spanish R13 or Italian accent, nine interviews could not be fully transcribed. In those cases I R14 summarized the conversation in detail. R15 The interviews provided me with a multitude of information about what inclined R16 people to enact the practices they do, how and when they do it. Also, their aims, R17 lived experiences and tacit knowledge about collaboration in the project organization R18 were main factors of interest. However, it is not just a matter of asking what disposes R19 people to enact, or not to enact, practices, as if they are like tools in a toolbox and R20 it is just about explaining when and why someone is picked out; the relationship of R21 practices and people is much more intimate and profound than this (Barnes, 2001). R22 Therefore, to study practices, a mix of interviewing and observation is essential. R23 R24 Observing R25 This study’s interest in the lived experience of the actors in mega projects has led to R26 participant observation (Yanow, 2006). This research method provides data on how R27 cross-cultural collaboration actually comes about in action, and how practices are R28 produced, reproduced and negotiated via collaboration. Hence, one can best gather R29 information about the daily practices and routines of project participants by living and R30 participating in the community and being open to the events and interactions under R31 study (Roessingh & Smits, 2010; Van der Waal, 2009). And thus, I moved to Panama R32 R33 R34

77 Chapter 3

R1 for the fieldwork period. In the first month I was based in a hostel located relatively close to ACP’s premises in Corozal Oeste. With the kind help of the ACP employees, R3 I was allowed to stay in an apartment of the ACP transit quarters in Balboa for the remaining fieldwork period. This area is located behind ACP’s Administration building R5 and at the foot of Ancon Hill. Constructed by the Americans when working on the R6 canal, these buildings were used to provide accommodation to military officers and R7 their families. Now, most buildings are turned into offices; the government rents R8 the majority, but the building I lived in is still used to temporarily house consultants R9 supporting the ACP. My neighbors were the personal driver of ACP’s Administrator R10 and his family, a consultant from the United States and, for four months, a Dutch R11 student of Delft University of Technology. The Balboa area contains a former high R12 school, a postal office, a theatre, a fast food restaurant, ACP’s sport facilities and a R13 strip of grass surrounded by palm trees measuring the size of a lock chamber in the R14 canal. By living in this area, I was daily confronted with both the history and current R15 developments of the Panama Canal. I often made use of the sports facilities and R16 found a silent place to work in the beautiful library. In the second half of the year, R17 with help from GUPC, I could make use of a rental car, which gave me much more R18 flexibility to visit meetings and events in various project offices. R19 As Silverman (2007) suggests, the ethnographer’s gaze demands two things: R20 being able to locate the mundane features of extraordinary situations and to identify R21 what is remarkable in everyday life. As such, I participated in regular daily activities R22 as well as in more special events in the everyday work life. My degree and the kind R23 of participation depended on the activity or event, sometimes participating as a R24 researcher alone, and only observing the event, while at other activities I would act R25 as a situational participant (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). Observing the practices R26 of collaboration among project participants involved going with them to the project R27 sites, joining them in meetings and participating in informal festivities. I accepted R28 invitations eagerly and was able to observe daily work routines, workshops, and R29 meetings at various organizational levels as well as the more unofficial practices of R30 collaboration. I furthermore participated in informal gatherings such as lunch and R31 coffee breaks, hallway conversations and company celebrations. Moreover, I invited R32 respondents to reflect on their work in a private setting, such as a dinner or a lunch, R33 R34

78 Ethnography in Practice

and asked various people to select pictures representing what collaboration meant R1 for them. During or directly after all events I took field notes and transcribed them to R2 my computer the same day, or as soon as possible. R3 The ACP and GUPC each had their own project site offices, based on the Atlantic R4 side (in a town called Gatún) and Pacific side (in Cocolí) of the Panama Canal. I spent R5 two full weeks at each site office and tagged along with employees at different R6 levels in the project organization, e,g., foremen, engineers, and project managers. I R7 participated in meetings of different collaborative relationships and was allowed to R8 attend a few top-level meetings. In between interviews and meetings there was a lot R9 of time to wander through the labyrinth of cubicles. During these walks I remembered R10 the posters in the hallway, took pictures, and encountered employees who were open R11 for a chat or invited me to see the project’s progress in the field. Wandering around R12 in GUPC’s offices felt different, as a more hasty work environment prevailed. GUPC’s R13 offices did not have cubicles, but buildings were divided into various department R14 rooms. Most of my time was spent in an office frequently visited by employees who R15 needed supplies or general assistance. This way, many project participants noticed my R16 presence and some showed curiosity about my position. It was often after meetings R17 or during lunchtime that I could connect with GUPC project participants. CH2M Hill R18 employees, all based in the ACP offices, seemed to best understand the purpose R19 of my research, probably because the research topic is more discussed within their R20 home organization, and therefore they were open to speaking up and allowing me R21 to observe in their work environment. R22 The special events I observed were, among others, pre-construction meetings, the R23 project award meeting for PAC 4, and trade missions between the Netherlands and R24 Panama. In addition, I participated in the knowledge-exchange workshops between R25 the ACP and Rijkswaterstaat, the One Team, One Mission dinner party, CH2M Hill’s R26 safety training and GUPC’s introduction course for new employees. Additionally, I R27 obtained a broader view of the canal’s operations by visiting the Miraflores Locks R28 Visitors Center regularly, by going on a tugboat and working as a line handler7. R29 Observational notes range from hallway comments and office drawings to R30 extensive detailed descriptions of an event of space. At meetings, for example, I would R31 R32 7 An ethnographic account of my experience as a line handler in the Panama Canal was published in Essay, the magazine for the Faculty of Social Sciences at VU University, Volume 17, Edition 1. R33 R34

79 Chapter 3

R1 take note about what was being said and how comments were portrayed, e.g., facial expressions and gestures, but I would also make drawings of the décor and seating R3 arrangements. In addition, I would keep an eye out about what happened after the meeting: informal groups were often formed for further discussion, either staying in R5 the meeting room or moving to a private office space. In addition, I kept notes of my R6 personal reflections on the everyday life as a researcher in a separate research journal. R7 R8 Reading R9 To support data from interviews and observations, a documentary study fed this R10 research with more contextual information on the Panama Canal Expansion Program. R11 This involves the study of existing documents and documents produced during the R12 fieldwork period, to understand their substantive content and to illuminate deeper R13 meanings revealed by their style and coverage (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Table 3.4 R14 provides insight into the type of documents that I gathered per organization. R15 R16 Table 3.4 Type of documents per organization R17 Organization Document types R18 ACP Website, Intranet, emails, company brochures, newspaper articles and cartoons, presentations, policy documents, annual reports, R19 organization charts, contracts, tender documents, studies on Panama Canal, historical photos, maps and articles, videos R20 CH2M Hill website, company booklet, presentations, studies, ACP agreement R21 documents R22 Sacyr Website, newspaper articles Impregilo Website, newspaper articles R23 Jan de Nul Website, newspaper articles R24 CUSA Website, newspaper articles R25 GUPC Website, news paper articles, presentations, emails, contracts, tender documents, organization chart, videos R26 R27 R28 During the first phase of the research I extensively explored the Internet to learn about R29 the waterway and its infrastructural mega project. Once in the field, I got access to R30 ACP’s Intranet and the e-mail system. Just like all the ACP employees, I received an R31 International Press Review in my inbox everyday. This email contained links to articles R32 written about the Panama Canal, which was very helpful for me as it indicated how R33 R34

80 Ethnography in Practice

much interest there is for the canal, its operations and expansion project. Articles R1 and cartoons in the local newspapers gave insight in what is being said about the R2 canal’s development, while the companies’ webpages, brochures, presentations R3 and annual reports illustrated how the organizations portray themselves. Contracts, R4 proposals and tender documents described the contractual relationship between the R5 ACP and CH2M Hill and between the ACP and GUPC, as well as between Sacyr, R6 Impregilo, Jan de Nul and CUSA. Respondents helped me gather documents about R7 their organization by sending me internal correspondence, meeting reports, and R8 the Little Yellow Book, a small booklet capturing the values on which CH2M Hill R9 was built (Howland, 1982). Just like earlier studies on the Panama Canal, such as R10 the Environmental Impact Study (Vallarino, Galindo, & Brenes, 2007), the Master R11 Plan (ACP, 2006a) and theses by other researchers (e.g. Rosales, 2007; Versteijlen, R12 2010), books about Panama (e.g. Harding, 2006; Porras, 2005) and the history of R13 the Panama Canal (e.g. Greene, 2009; McCullough, 1977; Parker, 2009) as well as R14 articles found in the ACP’s Archives, recent publications by Wikileaks (e.g. Jiménez, R15 2010; Wikileaks 2010) and local newspapers (e.g. La Prensa) provided me with a R16 broader perspective on the Expansion Program of the Panama Canal. R17 Although I immersed myself in the project organization, I am aware that my access R18 to the dense social network and the informal aspects of the organizational life in the R19 Panama Canal Expansion Program was limited. Some events that were interesting R20 to me occurred at inaccessible places or I found out about them afterwards: off-site R21 meetings, private, after office hours and after meetings discussions, secret one-on- R22 ones, and so forth. Certainly, access to the field is never unlimited; one continuously R23 needs to negotiate and renegotiate, develop and maintain, her place in the field R24 (Duijnhoven, 2010; Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2009). I was flexible to adjust to the R25 environment and quickly built working relationships with project participants. Most R26 of my contacts were engineers, middle managers and their subordinates. I was able R27 to find a place in their networks and build relationships with people from various R28 organizational levels: workers, secretaries, engineers, supervisors and top-managers. R29 To validate my findings, I presented my (preliminary) results and conclusions to R30 respondents in Panama and to project managers working in other infrastructural R31 mega projects. R32 R33 R34

81 Chapter 3

R1 Besides Third Set of Locks Project I also had connections with participants from other projects of the Panama Canal Expansion Program. To broaden my focus on R3 cross-cultural collaboration in this mega project, I arranged for two students from the Master program Culture, Organization and Management at VU University to R5 participate in my research project. Lieke Rijnders and Catelijn Schönfeld came to R6 Panama in February 2010 and each conducted a three-month ethnographic study of R7 an excavation project in the Expansion Program. Lieke studied the on-going Pacific R8 Access Channel 3 (PAC3) project, while Catelijn focused on the start-up of the Pacific R9 Access Channel 4 (PAC4) project. The students interviewed respondents at all levels R10 of their project organization, both at ACP’s side as well as at the contractor’s side, R11 and conducted extensive participant observations. They did an excellent job and I am R12 grateful for their participation in my study8. R13 R14 Analyzing and Writing R15 R16 During the fieldwork period I gathered a wealth of empirical data: interview R17 transcriptions, observational notes, pictures, newspaper articles, presentations, video R18 clips, policy documents, website material, brochures, memos, reports, and so forth. To R19 identify and process the relevant information from the endless amount of documents, R20 I saved the documents according to date, organization (ACP, CH2M Hill or GUPC) and R21 the general topic of the document in a folder indicating the type of data (interview, R22 meeting, research journal, media, etc.). Organizing the data in this manner helped me R23 to maintain an overview of the documents collected and to find a document again in R24 a later stage of the research. All interviews and observational notes were uploaded in R25 the Qualitative Data Analysis Software Program ‘Atlas.ti’ (version 6.2). In this content R26 analysis program I read and interpreted each text sequence in order to assign a label R27 to it. Labels emerged intuitively and, similarly, were construed from the data. A R28 classified text could be a phrase, a few sentences or as much as a paragraph. During R29 this process I continuously went back and forth between documents questioning R30 under which label data could be placed and to compare new data with material that R31 8 In the presentation of my research findings I have not used any of the students’ research data. R32 Nevertheless, their presence in the field and the discussions we had about the research field were R33 fruitful for the development of my research. R34

82 Ethnography in Practice

already had a label. To make sure that labels remained comprehensible to me, I added R1 memos explaining their meaning and how I intended using them. Essentially, I used R2 two kinds of labels: those directly found in the material and those I constructed from R3 the material (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). While the list of R4 labels expanded, ideas developed and categories for the labels surfaced. Shifting the R5 labels around in all possible ways refined the initial coding structure, and, keeping the R6 everyday practices in mind, I tried to think of possible ways to connect the categories. R7 Subsequently, I attached theoretical concepts and comments to the categories and R8 wrote memos on the possible connections between categories. This process of R9 coding is a very time consuming process; it involved a highly intensive analysis – word R10 for word, line by line and paragraph by paragraph. To save time I therefore decided R11 not to upload and code all other documents gathered, but to start writing up the R12 ideas and returning to these documents when needed. Hence, observational notes R13 and contextual document were not included in the content analysis program as I had R14 these on top of my mind and, following my structure of saving the data, were easy to R15 find when required. In the empirical chapters I will illustrate the main categories from R16 my analysis through presenting quotations typical of many others in the data set. R17 Although a book is read from the beginning to the end, writing often starts in R18 the middle. As such, I started writing up the empirical chapters first. Following the R19 research aim to illustrate how project participants translate and negotiate practices R20 and to portray internal dynamics with regard to collaboration within a project R21 organization, an ethnographic writing style was adopted. Only elaborate descriptions R22 of the practices of collaboration can provide an in-depth understanding of the cultural R23 complex processes within the project organization. Through thick descriptions of the R24 everyday work environment, and its context, ethnographic writers intend to explain R25 the actors’ behavior as well as to make this behavior meaningful to an outsider. It R26 is therefore important to pay attention to the rich layers of meaning and symbolism R27 that characterize human behavior and social phenomena (Alvesson & Sköldberg, R28 2010). It should be noted that, just like the practitioners they write about, scientists R29 are practitioners who want to persuade their public (Van Hulst, 2008). R30 For a long time I aimed at illustrating the data in three collaborative relationships R31 that can be found in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: (1) ACP with CH2M R32 R33 R34

83 Chapter 3

R1 Hill, (2) Sacyr, Impregilo, Jan de Nul and CUSA forming GUPC together, and (3) ACP with GUPC. However, in the writing process it became clear that it would be R3 more interesting to write up the data with a stronger emphasis on the practices of collaboration itself, and finally I decided to structure the dissertation in the way it R5 is presented in the following chapters: portraying practices of collaboration within R6 GUPC (Chapter 5 and 6) and between ACP and CH2M Hill (Chapter 7). Figure 3.1 R7 illustrates the final research cases in this study. R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 Figure 3.1 Final research cases R20 R21 Since interviews were conducted in various languages, I translated the interview R22 parts to English when cited in the dissertation. Moreover, following the standardized R23 approach (Blauner in Weiss, 1994), some quotes had to be adjusted to enhance R24 readability. That is, in this study I have no means to question the respondents’ R25 language skills nor do I want to disturb the reader with language errors in speech R26 marks. It is important to note here that words not belonging to the respondent R27 have never been attributed to the respondent. Cleaning up speech is solely done to R28 make the respondent’s statements accessible to the reader, because absolute literal R29 transcription of respondent’s words can interfere with understanding them (Weiss, R30 1994). To give an example of how such editing is done, two examples follow: R31 R32 R33 R34

84 Ethnography in Practice

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 The examples illustrate that without losing the meaning of the text, marginal R16 corrections improved its readability. In Example 1 I enhanced the flow of the sentence R17 and adjusted the tense of the quotation so that it was in line with its context. In R18 Example 2 I changed the text from a passive form to a more active form and included R19 information enhancing the readers comprehension. In addition, to safeguard the R20 anonymity promised to actors in the field, names and positions used in the dissertation R21 are fictitious. Although I aim displaying the data transparently and writing clearly and R22 comprehensibly about the field, I find it more important to make sure that respondents R23 come to no harm by what is written. I changed names and altered positions by R24 trying to either find a substitute position involving similar kind of work or by using R25 relatively vague positions, such as seen in the examples above: a Pacific Engineer R26 Impregilo is not the original position of the respondent. This ‘position’ reflects a R27 general direction into the actor’s occupation and indicates the organization to which R28 the actor is related: this respondent is an engineer whose home organization is the R29 Italian participant in GUPC, Impregilo. In some instances, however, it seemed illogical R30 to disguise the identity of the respondent, as his or her name and position are publicly R31 known. In these cases I still covered the actor’s name and position, but stayed closer R32 R33 R34

85 Chapter 3

R1 to the original data. At first, I also tried to protect the names of the organizations under study, but, because the Panama Canal Expansion Program and it participating R3 organizations receive so much attention, I soon understood this was pointless. When I finished an empirical text about the collaborative relationship between R5 the ACP and CH2M Hill I sent it to several key respondents to receive feedback from R6 the field as well as to show my style of writing. Bringing written material back to the R7 respondents is called ‘member-checking’ (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012; Ybema et R8 al., 2009). This is not done for checking quotes, but moreover to make sure that I fully R9 grasped the insiders’ perspective on a certain event or organizational policy. I wanted R10 their input on my text, but simultaneously aimed at illustrating the manner in which R11 data would be portrayed, because an ethnographic writing style was new to many R12 respondents. I tried to create awareness of novelistic texts and the use of quotes R13 and personal stories propagating the research data and outcomes. My respondents R14 recognized my interpretations, agreed to most of them and were surprised by the R15 dynamics I unraveled. This work was also presented to my supervisors, practitioners R16 and academic colleagues at conferences, and finally, published in an academic journal R17 (see: Smits & Van Marrewijk, 2012). Ultimately, a draft of the complete dissertation R18 was sent to key respondents from the ACP, CH2M Hill and GUPC. R19 It appeared to be highly important to continuously stay in touch with the field. R20 In November 2011, for example, I received a call from one of my key respondents in R21 Panama; he had read what a journalist had written about collaboration in the Third R22 Set of Locks project after interviewing me. Although the caller agreed with my words, R23 and those of the journalist, his boss summoned him to ensure the text would be R24 erased from the article. I was given two options: I could either contact the journalist R25 myself to request removal of the text or the company itself would take action. I R26 opted for the first choice as the latter might have resulted in a ban to publish this R27 thesis. This event clearly illustrates the sensitivity of the research and exemplifies that R28 participating organizations are not ready to openly discuss the topic. Furthermore, R29 it shows that remaining in contact with the field is essential to discuss journalistic R30 reporting and presentation of ethnographic research outcomes (Denzin, 1997). R31 R32 R33 R34

86 Ethnography in Practice

Although in this chapter research activities such as generating, coding, analyzing R1 and writing the data are divided into separate paragraphs, in practice these activities R2 are intertwined in a more interpretive and inductive process: prior experiences shape R3 one’s understanding of new experiences, and the new understanding is the starting R4 point for subsequent experiences (Yanow, 2006). Fieldwork seems to be a particular R5 activity, because it is separated in time and space, but in fact, analysis starts in the R6 field and continues throughout the writing process and presentation of the research R7 (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). Hence there is no one-way street between the R8 researcher and the object of study: the two affect each other mutually and continually R9 in the course of the research process (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010). In the previous R10 paragraphs I have tried to be as reflective and transparent as possible about the R11 research activities, but what is missing is an account on my personal background and R12 the role as a researcher. This will be described in the following paragraph. R13 R14 About me: the researcher R15 R16 As with picture taking, one can capture an image from various viewpoints. The R17 picture that I portray in this dissertation is taken from where I have been standing and R18 based on my perspective and interpretations. It is very much possible that if someone R19 else would have been present at the same place and time, the picture would have R20 come out differently. Influenced by the personal meaning making processes of R21 its taker, a picture is very much a personal account. As such, the researcher and R22 her research are inextricably bound up with each other. In ethnographic research, R23 therefore, the researcher is the primary research instrument and a detailed account R24 on my background and personal experiences can enhance the reader’s understanding R25 of the tool I was in this study (Humphreys, 2005). R26 My cultural background as a Dutch female, raised in a Western society, educated R27 in Human Resource Management (Ba.), with academic training as an Organizational R28 Scientist (MSc.) as well as my specific upbringing influences my understanding of the R29 research setting. This background has affected the choices I made and supported R30 me in gathering data for this research as well as signaling the cultural practices that R31 exist and emerge in collaborative relationships (Smits & Van Marrewijk, 2012). It is, R32 R33 R34

87 Chapter 3

R1 however, important to note that I have no technical background, neither have I ever worked in an infrastructural megaproject before. To a certain extent, this has been R3 beneficial, as most of the time I did not understand what engineers were talking about when they talked numbers or studied drawings, instead I had to ask them R5 to explain those to me, which they all generously did and I felt this was helpful in R6 winning the confidence of the engineers. Yet, the lack of a technical background was R7 also a burden as my notes omitted things that seemed obvious in the field but were R8 less so when reading them from behind my desk. R9 Being a stranger in the field, which is a strength of ethnographic research, helped R10 me seeing certain phenomena as remarkable while those are not so to insiders R11 (Czarniawska, 1998; Ybema & Kamsteeg, 2009). On the other hand, my presence also R12 had an effect on the project organization, as it seemed that the term ‘organizational R13 culture’ received more attention than before. One case in point is the ACP Program R14 Director’s presentation to a group of Dutch entrepreneurs and the Dutch Minister of R15 Foreign Trade9, in which he openly spoke about cultural differences and the struggles R16 caused by the cultural gap between the ACP and the GUPC organization (Fieldnotes, R17 January 2010). Nevertheless, being part of the field for such a long time sometimes R18 resulted in a tendency that I took over the insiders’ language and did not recognize R19 the extraordinary within the field anymore. The assistance of my supervisors and R20 colleagues has been of high value in calling my attention to the interesting material R21 I gathered. R22 The Latin American culture, Panama’s society, its historical background and the R23 male dominated construction sector roughly characterize the research setting. Being R24 a foreign, white, female researcher in this setting was peculiar. At various instances R25 respondents would act surprised when I told them I was 27 years old, as for them, R26 conducting a Ph.D. study is what careerists only do towards the end of their career. R27 The experiences I gathered when travelling South East Asia (in 2004) and South R28 America (in 2005) were beneficial in connecting with research respondents as they R29 often resided from or had visited places where I had been; this helped us start a R30 conversation. In 2007, I conducted an ethnographic study among the Mennonites in R31 Belize (see: Smits, Nabben, & Kok, 2009), and learned that although having another R32 9 During the Parliament Balkenende IV, from 2007 to 2010, Frank Heemskerk was ‘Staatssecretaris R33 van Economische Zaken’, a title that outside the Netherlands translates as ‘Minister of Foreign Trade’. R34

88 Ethnography in Practice

background or personality than my respondents, I could easily blend in the research R1 community. This appeared not to be any different in Panama: I was closely involved R2 with Panama’s society and the employees of the project organization. R3 Respondents from all levels in the organization reacted friendly and warmly when R4 seeing me. I felt that within GUPC I was perceived in a more business-like manner, R5 while within the ACP I was treated more informally. I think this happened because the R6 ACP and CH2M Hill employees got to know me better due to various organizational R7 activities in which I participated, and, as a group they had been together for a longer R8 period of time. Within GUPC, I was new, but also everyone else was new to each R9 other. It took GUPC employees a little longer to realize that I was not reporting to R10 the ACP, but rather had a ‘neutral’ position. Yet, I could not get rid of the ACP status R11 entirely. I continuously had to explain who I was and what my position was in the R12 project. At the same time, in other contexts I enjoyed the ACP status. When being R13 stopped by the police, for example, showing my ACP ID card always helped me to R14 pass their control posts more quickly. R15 Furthermore, the different office environments came to be reflected in the way R16 I dressed. Initially, my European outfits might have distinguished me, but I tried to R17 minimize this by observing the dress code in the offices and shop in local stores. I R18 noticed that in the ACP offices, where CH2M Hill employees were also based, the R19 dress code was fairly neat: people would wear suits and blouses. GUPC’s dress code R20 came across as less formal, since many employees would wear jeans and t-shirts. As a R21 result, I dressed accordingly. If I had planned a field visit, I had to wear jeans, sneakers R22 and a t-shirt. Depending on other activities I had planned for that day, I would either R23 wear or bring such an outfit. R24 My blond hair and blue eyes gave away my non-Latin descents. As much as R25 I blended in the research community, I also remained an outsider for having such R26 different looks and background. In some occasions, this made me feel uncomfortable. R27 Once, in an interview a GUPC respondent started by saying that he would not be R28 able “to be questioned when I looked at him like that”. In this particular situation, R29 I remained silent for a minute, continued the interview and ‘ignored’ the remark. R30 In another interview I asked the respondent to get me in touch with his supervisor, R31 which he teasingly refused to do so, but then said: “your eyes make me weak” and R32 R33 R34

89 Chapter 3

R1 gave me the details I requested. This same person learned that the Dutch have a habit of greeting a person with three kisses on the cheeks, and would always ask R3 for two more than is Panama’s habit. Only once I felt uncomfortable: in a car ride with an ACP respondent, who, as it soon became clear, did not take me out to R5 check out a situation in the field, but was highly interested in matching me with his R6 son. Nonetheless, no respondent ever crossed a line, never did I feel threatened, yet R7 these occasions reminded me of my strangeness. On the other hand, there also were R8 moments in which I felt that my appearance was an advantage. When encouraging R9 people to reveal information, for example, and when entering ACP’s premises without R10 ID card guards would always let me pass. Of course, I never know for sure whether R11 this was an effect of the distinct looks, or whether it was the friendly female face that R12 helped me gain access and persuade people to speak in the mostly male dominated R13 research environment. R14 As mentioned, a few months into the research the contact with the Environmental R15 Department dissolved. This also resulted in a new workplace for me; I was located in R16 an office further away from the headquarters for the Expansion Program. Still in close R17 distance to the headquarter buildings number 739 and 740, a three-minute drive or R18 a ten-minute walk, my desk at office building 600 felt far away from the scene. At R19 first, however, I wrote about my new workspace: R20 R21 Wow, this is great! A view over the Canal! Research-wise this office is a little far R22 away from the Third Set of Locks employees, but I can walk over there anytime, I R23 have my access to the buildings and to the people. At the same time this seems R24 to be a nice and quiet place to work on my interviews and notes. (December R25 2009) R26 R27 A couple of months later, my enthusiasm decreased as I found out that the offices R28 in this building were mostly empty. Compared to the lively 739, silence in building R29 600 at times felt painful. I felt as I was tucked away from the action. Nevertheless, R30 this office also gave me more space to move around freely, and helped me remember R31 that I was lucky to be at such a special place: I could see ships passing through the R32 Panama Canal and occasionally, a little bird would accompany me at my window, R33 R34

90 Ethnography in Practice

or a toucan would pass by. In the end, moving to this office never really affected R1 my position within the project organization under study, as long as I actively kept R2 developing and maintaining the relationships built. In fact, I think that moving to R3 this office triggered my friends to come up with a nickname for me, la muñeca R4 que pasea (the doll that travels), referring to the notion that I was always going R5 somewhere, always visiting places and people; they would always encounter me in R6 different places in the organization. I never stopped exploring. R7 As mentioned, being a stranger in the field has its advantages. However, it R8 also counts for various limitations. Language, gender and time are the three major R9 limitations I encountered in this study. As a consequence of my anxiety to speak R10 Spanish, I started out conducting interviews in English, which was perfectly possible R11 within the ACP and CH2M Hill. Although I proved to understand the majority of R12 informal conversations held in Spanish, I took private Spanish lessons for a semester R13 at Universidad de Las Americas (UDELAS) and followed group lessons at Español R14 en Panamá (EPA) for one month to further master my Spanish language skills. My R15 Spanish quickly improved, which was highly appreciated by respondents, and when R16 I gained more confidence, I could conduct various interviews in Spanish. Limitations R17 with regard to being a female researcher in the male dominated environment mostly R18 came to the fore in never being ‘one of the guys’; I was always ‘the researcher’, R19 ‘the Dutch girl’ or ‘the professor’. Time limitations for this study are related to my R20 presence in the field. I could only be present in the project for the period of one year, R21 due to which I did not attend the tender phase and could only follow the years to R22 come from a distance. R23 At its core, fieldwork is a long social process of coming to terms with a research R24 community and its culture. It is a process that begins before a researcher enters R25 the field, with preparation, and continues long after leaving the field (Van Maanen, R26 1988). After I left the field as a researcher I stuck closely to the developments of the R27 Expansion Program via the news on the Internet10, contact with key respondents R28 and regular visits verifying my data and preliminary analyses. As portrayed in this R29 methodological chapter, ethnographic research is a highly personal endeavor. R30 As such, what is presented in the following chapters is based on my idiosyncratic R31 interpretations of the research community and its related context. R32 R33 10 ACP maintains accounts on Twitter and Facebook and I often visited the websites of the ACP and GUPC. R34

Chapter 4

The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward Chapter 4

R1 Introduction

R3 After a noisy take off this sight puts a smile on my face: Panama! I accepted an invitation to fly in a Cessna plane over the country and now I glance outside the R5 airplane window. The sun casts its beautiful rays as it climbs higher in the morning R6 sky. The green colors of the jungle are brightened, the white sand of the beaches is R7 lightened and the sky shows its bright blue colors. For a second, the reflections of R8 the sun in the ocean blind me. As the plane leans over to make a sharp curve, I have R9 a good view of the country’s Pacific shore. There it is, from high up in the air I can R10 clearly see how the Panama Canal cuts its way through the land. Via a wide entrance R11 the waterway curves around the mountains to find a way to the other side of the R12 country. When we slowly decend, the numerous dots in the ocean shape into cruise R13 ships and cargo vessels waiting for their turn to sail through the Canal. Where beach R14 and rainforest color the left side of the Pacific entrance, Panama City starts on the R15 right side. While carrying the Inter-American Highway, the Bridge of the Americans R16 connects the two pieces of land together. A dense construction of housing starts R17 immediately after the bridge. Recreation area Calzada de Amador points out: three R18 islands that are connected to the mainland. This picturesque causeway, lined with R19 palm trees, was built with excavation material during the construction of the canal. R20 Formerly part of a military base, the area now offers a wide variety of restaurants, a R21 magnificent view on the city and the Pacific entrance of the canal. Locals and tourists R22 enjoy the paved sidewalk for a leisurely walk, or come to bike, skate or jog while R23 enjoying the scenic views. R24 When we fly above the coastline I recognize some of the high-rise buildings and R25 the pilot points at a building in a shape of the letter D. “That is done by Trump. Donald R26 Trump,” he informs me. Many other buildings around it are under construction and R27 various others seem to be desolate. The pilot explains that most residence buildings R28 are used as a second home for wealthy citizens of the United States, Canada and R29 Europe; only a few weeks a year these apartments are in use. I gaze around while R30 we follow the canal until we reach the Gatun Locks, where the waterway meets the R31 Atlantic Ocean. The San Blas Islands are also located at this side of the country. Home R32 to the Kuna Indians this archipelago consists of numerous small islands. “About R33 365,” says the pilot, “one for each day of the year.” And he turns the plane to make R34 our way back to the airport.

94 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

Safe and sound I set foot on Panama grounds. Up in the air the climate was fresh, but R1 as soon as I step out of the plane I feel a blanket of humidity wrapping around my R2 body; I like to think of it as a warm embrace of welcome. Welcome back, there is so R3 much more to explore about this country and its Canal! (Fieldnotes, November 2009) R4 R5 Panama. Bordering with Costa Rica and Colombia, Panama connects Central America R6 with South America (see Figure 4.1). Due to the geographic location of the Isthmus R7 of Panama, the country has long been coveted as a place where the Atlantic and R8 Pacific oceans should meet, and, with the Panama Canal, they finally do. R9 In this chapter I aim to portray the context of this dissertation. I will first lay out R10 the history of the Panama Canal, a story in which the country’s history is inextricably R11 bound up. Second, in relation to the Panama Canal operations, I will discuss the goal R12 and plans for the Panama Canal Expansion Program. Also, I will briefly elaborate on R13 the components in this infrastructural mega project. Third, the main parties in the R14 Third Set of Locks project, and those in my research, are outlined. R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 Figure 4.1 Map of Panama (Courtesy of the University of Texas Libraries, The University R27 of Texas at Austin) R28 R29 History of the Panama Canal R30 R31 In 1513, when Vasco Nuñez de Balboa discovered the Southern Sea (later known R32 as the Pacific Ocean) and realized how close this ocean is to the Atlantic Ocean, the R33 history of the Panama Canal began. From that moment onwards there had been R34

95 Chapter 4

R1 talks about a shortcut through Central America, but it required certain advances in engineering, among other things, to actually construct this alternate route. Three R3 hundred years later, discussions about where a canal ought to go developed into a choice between Nicaragua and Panama. While the debate continued, Colombia R5 allowed a group of entrepreneurs from the United States of America to build a R6 railroad across their province Panama. After their experiences in Panama, however, R7 the railroad builders argued for another location for the canal as, for them, “Panama R8 was the worst place possible to send men to build anything” (McCullough, 1977 : R9 36). Despite these experiences, an international congress, which was attended by the R10 world-famous Suez Canal engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps, voted for a sea level canal R11 in Panama. Known after 1869 as ‘The Great Engineer’, de Lesseps, who in fact had R12 no technical background or experience in financing, took command of the enterprise R13 to build a sea level canal in Panama (McCullough, 1977). R14 R15 The French Attempt R16 The work in Panama was an immensely larger and more baffling task than Lesseps R17 had performed at the Suez Canal (McCullough, 1977). Different than in Suez, the R18 climate in Panama was not only hot but with humidity reaching 98 percent at times, R19 suffocating. While digging at Suez had been through a flat level dessert, in Panama R20 the workers encountered hard rock and clay. Another important difference between R21 Suez and Panama was the rainfall, in Suez it rained about nine inches a year, while R22 rainfall in Panama was measured in feet11; ten feet or more on the Caribbean slope R23 and five to six feet in Panama City (McCullough, 1977). As a result of the heavy R24 rainfall, digging proved to be much more difficult in Panama and the threat of R25 diseases was very high. Panama appeared to be the most difficult place to construct R26 a canal: there were thick jungles full of snakes, mosquitoes that carried malaria or R27 yellow fever, deep swamps and a heavy mountain range (Parker, 2009). R28 De Lesseps and his crew spent eight and a half years fighting against the jungle, a R29 battle they lost. An earthquake, fires, floods, the continuous epidemic of yellow fever, R30 a huge amount of corruption and, on top of this, insufficient funds and unfortunate R31 engineering decisions converged into a tragic ending of the French attempt (Greene, R32 2009; McCullough, 1977; Parker, 2009). In 1889, de Lessep’s venture fell: more than R33 11 One feet equals 12 inches. R34

96 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

a billion francs -about US$ 287 million- had been spent, accidents and diseases had R1 claimed twenty thousand lives and the project organization Compangie Universelle R2 du Canal Interocéanique de Panama went bankrupt (Greene, 2009; McCullough, R3 1977). The lesson learned from the French undertaking was that the construction R4 of a canal went beyond the capacity of any purely private enterprise, it had to be R5 a national undertaking, and the United States of America appeared to be the one R6 nation ready to mount such and effort (McCullough, 1977). R7 R8 The American Victory R9 When Theodore Roosevelt became the President of the United States of America12 in R10 1901, he was determined that a canal was the vital, indispensable path to a global R11 future for the United States (Ives, 2010; McCullough, 1977). For both commercial as R12 well as military vessels it would significantly improve shipping time, lower shipping R13 costs, and avoid passing through the often-dangerous weather at the tip of South R14 America. Furthermore, a two-ocean navy would not be necessary when the two R15 coasts would be connected. A canal would demonstrate American power to the R16 world and enhance the nation’s identity as a supreme authority (Greene, 2009). R17 Despite intensive lobbying and heavy discussions about where this canal had to R18 be built, in Nicaragua or Panama, President Roosevelt finally decided it had to be R19 Panama (Greene, 2009; McCullough, 1977). R20 There was just one obstacle: Panama was a small province of Colombia and R21 the Colombian constitution prohibited any sovereignty to give away any part of R22 the country, which is exactly what Roosevelt had in mind. He had learned that a R23 group of Panamanian elites had plotted a revolution for years and he decided to R24 support this group to declare its independence under the protection of the United R25 States (Greene, 2009). On November 3rd, 1903, a coup gave birth to the Republic of R26 Panama. Soon after this bloodless revolution Panama and the United States signed R27 the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty. This agreement evoked a whirlwind of controversy as R28 it gave astonishing rights to the United States, while it eliminated any independence R29 of the Republic of Panama (Greene, 2009; McCullough, 1977). The treaty granted R30 the United States effective sovereignty over the ‘Canal Zone’, a ten-mile wide swath R31 R32 12 United States of America will be further abbreviated as United States, except for when I use direct quotes of authors. R33 R34

97 Chapter 4

R1 that stretched clear across the isthmus and cut the country in two. It gave the United States the right to purchase or control any land or building regarded necessary for R3 the construction of the canal and allowed the United States to intervene anywhere in the republic to restore public order “in case the Republic of Panama should not R5 be, in the judgment of the United States, able to maintain such order” (Greene, R6 2009). In three ways, the United States dominated the isthmus and created a great R7 degree of dependency for Panama (Harding, 2006). First, a dual-tier payroll system R8 was implemented paying the Americans in gold coin, but Panamanians, and other R9 workers, in the less- valuable silver coin. Gold workers earned high wages and terrific R10 benefits, including six weeks of paid vacation leave and one month of paid sick leave R11 every year, plus a free pass for travel within the Zone, while silver workers received R12 no benefits, were fed unappetizing food and were housed in substandard shacks R13 (Greene, 2009). Second, racism effects treated Panamanians as second-class citizens R14 excluding them from public life by signs like “whites only”. The racial hierarchy R15 nourished and legitimized a segregation system into the society of the Republic of R16 Panama (Greene, 2009; Parker, 2009). And third, after accepting the American dollar R17 as a legal tender in Panama the government’s hands were tied, as it could not make R18 its own monetary policy. Hence, on paper the canal was in Panamanian hands and R19 under control of the United States, yet, in practice, the Canal Zone was treated as a R20 sovereign territory where American laws and power were supreme (Harding, 2006). R21 Later, this treaty became a contentious diplomatic issue between Panama and the R22 United States. R23 The Panama Canal construction project attracted people from all over the R24 world. It promised the return of prosperity surpassing the French era and there was R25 no doubt it would be completed (McCullough, 1977). Labor agents targeted the R26 Caribbean islands for workers and attracted at least twenty thousand Barbadians R27 and an almost equal amount of West Indians to travel to Panama and sign a contract R28 with the government of the United States (Greene, 2009). Although the project R29 drew mostly migrants from this region, thousands of others from Mexico, Costa Rica, R30 Colombia, Peru, India, China and Europe also packed their suitcases for the Canal R31 Zone. Even higher numbers of people from the United States were attracted by the R32 prestigious job for the federal government, the adventure and good payment. Under R33 R34

98 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

supervision of army doctor Colonel William Gorgas doctors and sanitary inspectors R1 fought yellow fever and malaria; all streets in Panama were cleaned, pools were R2 drained and waterways oiled to get rid of the disease-carrying mosquitos (Parker, R3 2009). As conditions in the isthmus improved, after 1906, more American women R4 packed their bags for Panama so they might work as nurses, secretaries or provide R5 a home for their husbands (Greene, 2009). Acting as a global magnet, the canal R6 project drew families away from their home countries and set in motion extensive R7 changes concerning migration, labor supply and the allocation of economic wealth R8 and social status. R9 Various towns arose in the Canal Zone, most of which had American sections, R10 but also labor camps for various ethnic groups emerged. The ‘Zone’, as it was often R11 referred to, took on an identity and “became a community, or, rather, a cluster of R12 communities” (Friar, 1996:7). American residents made up the core of permanents R13 residents in the zone and became known as ‘Zonians’, who lived in a quasi-utopian R14 paradise where virtually everything was subsidized by the United States (Harding, R15 2006). In stark contrast to life in Panama, the Americans lived in great luxury, as R16 American food, music, housing and entertainment were omnipresent in the Canal R17 Zone. Residents of the Canal Zone lived under the American law, had their own police R18 force, court system, and even stamps (Friar, 1996). However, a strong segregation R19 system that was based on race created big divides between canal employees. R20 The unequal education system, for example, provided good quality schooling for R21 American children. White schools were housed in new buildings, well staffed and R22 equipped so that performance corresponded to that of schools in the United States, R23 while non-white schools were housed in rundown buildings, staffed by less trained R24 teachers who had to oversee high amounts of pupils and received low-quality R25 facilities (Parker, 2009). The color line cut through every facet of daily life in the Zone R26 (McCullough, 1977). Furthermore, relations between canal builders and the local R27 Panamanian population was uneasy from the start of the project. To the Americans, R28 Panama was a land of dark, ignorant, undersized people who disliked them and R29 showed very little appreciation for all that was being done for them (McCullough, R30 1977). Panamanians, on the other hand, were hostile against the Americans and R31 resented their power, and they saw the ‘Gringo’ as loud, arrogant, impolite and R32 R33 R34

99 Chapter 4

R1 excessive drinkers (McCullough, 1977). On its peak, about forty-six thousand people lived in the Canal Zone and since everyone had to be an employee of the Panama R3 Canal Company, the Zone had no unemployment, no poverty and almost no crime (Friar, 1996). The ‘state Panama’, as it was often perceived, was deeply extended into R5 the lives of the residents of the Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama, and a firm R6 boundary was established between the two (Greene, 2009). R7 The construction of the Panama Canal officially took ten years, from May 1904 R8 to August 1914, and overlapped with the tenure of three chief engineers. The R9 first engineer, named John Wallace, only stayed on for the first chaotic year in the R10 isthmus. John Stevens, the second engineer, played a key contribution by pleading R11 for a lock rather than a sea-level canal. He remained on the job for two years. The R12 final engineer, George Washington Goethals, oversaw most of the construction of R13 the Panama Canal and stayed on the job until completion of the project (Greene, R14 2009; McCullough, 1977; Parker, 2009). With newer and bigger machinery, like the R15 steam shovel, an enormous international workforce and a solution to fight malaria R16 and yellow fever, the United States constructed the Panama Canal with its three R17 locks (one 1-chamber and one 2-chamber lock at the Pacific side and one 3-chamber R18 lock at the Atlantic side): Gatún, Pedro Miguel and Miraflores, each named after the R19 village where it was built (Del R. Martínez, 2009). The design and construction of R20 the locks was the most spectacular aspect of the project (Greene, 2009). An artificial R21 lake, Gatun Lake, was created so that ships could pass the canal at 26 meters above R22 sea level, through the narrow Gaillard Cut. The costs of the project had been more R23 than four times what constructing Suez Canal had cost and were enormous for those R24 days; no other construction effort in the history of the United States paid such a price R25 in dollar or in human life (McCullough, 1977). This project took more than 5.000 R26 human lives and totaled US$ 352.000.000 in expenditures, which, taken together R27 with the French expenditure summed up to a cost of US$ 639.000.000 (McCullough, R28 1977). Six months ahead of schedule, and with a final price that was actually US$ R29 23.000.000 below what was estimated in 1907, the construction of the Panama R30 Canal was finished (McCullough, 1977). In 1914, nearly 34 years after the first R31 shovel hit the ground, its gates opened for the first vessels to pass (Greene, 2009; R32 McCullough, 1977; Parker, 2009). This moment was a symbol to Americans, and to R33 R34

100 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

the rest of the world, letting them know that the United States had firmly established R1 itself as the most powerful nation on earth. R2 R3 Ownership of the Canal R4 After August 15, 1914, when the canal was officially inaugurated with the passage R5 of steamship Ancón, the supervision of the waterway remained under American R6 administration. The opening ceremony celebrated America’s triumph and the capstone R7 project characterizing Panama. It also signaled the beginning of an almost 100-year R8 relationship between Panama and the United States, ranging from intervention and R9 repression to reconciliation and cooperation (Harding, 2006). Although Panamanians R10 initially embraced the canal construction and hoped to benefit from the American R11 effort, their resentment grew over the years as the promised fruits of the alliance R12 proved sour (Greene, 2009). R13 In the decades after the opening of the waterway, tensions between Panama R14 and the United States were often stormy and colored by deep conflicts and violence. R15 Fostered by racial differences, notions of honor, respectability and civilization, the R16 relationship between the countries and their citizens was highly problematic (Greene, R17 2009). Frequently, the United States sent troops into the country to suppress protests R18 and, on the other side, the Panamanian police aggressively stood up against canal R19 employees (Harding, 2006). These frictions illustrated the complex and tense R20 relationship between Panamanians and Americans. Elite Panamanians perceived the R21 presence of the United States and the canal as necessary, expecting it to be a path to R22 modernity and civilization, yet instead of welfare, the project brought Americans who R23 behaved disorderly and uncivilized (Greene, 2009). More and more Panamanians R24 claimed a revision of the original terms of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty, and the R25 steady growth of dissatisfaction and frustration, as it reached its limit, was made R26 known in numerous uprisings and demonstrations (Greene, 2009; Harding, 2006; R27 Llacer, 2005). By means of the 1964 flag incident, Panama’s social volcano erupted. R28 For years, there had been discussion about whether the Panamanian flag should R29 be flying next to the American flag in the Canal Zone. When the governor of the R30 Canal Zone decided that at specific sites both flags should be flying, a large number R31 of Zonians enraged as they perceived this decision as a symbolic renunciation of U.S. R32 R33 R34

101 Chapter 4

R1 sovereignty (Harding, 2006). Panama’s flag was flown at various locations, but it remained absent at the Canal Zone’s prominent Balboa High School. On January 9, R3 1964, a group of Panamanian students entered the Canal Zone to fly the Panamanian flag in front of the school, next to the American flag (Greene, 2009; Harding, 2006; R5 Llacer, 2005). When the Panamanian students met the Canal Zone police, American R6 school officials, students and their parents, a scuffle broke out; tempers flared, the R7 Panamanian flag was torn, and wide-spread rioting followed (Harding, 2006). News R8 of the uprising spread the fighting to Panama’s second-largest city Colón and to R9 other regions of Panama, where demonstrators equally fought troops of the United R10 States (Harding, 2006). Over twenty people lost their lives and several hundreds were R11 seriously injured, but as both parties used the violence to portray the other side as R12 having caused the deaths, an exact number remains unknown. When I spoke about R13 this incident with an American engineer in Panama he ensured that the Americans R14 were not to blame, because his father, who was present at the riots, had told him R15 that the United States had not fired a single bullet in this confrontation (William, R16 informal conversation January 2010). Ensuing the uproar, Panama’s President Chiari R17 broke all diplomatic relations with the United States, while President Johnson praised R18 his troops for “behaving admirable under extreme provocation by mobs and snipers” R19 (Greene, 2009 : 373). To date, January 9 is a national holiday in Panama, known as R20 Martyrs’ Day. R21 Following the 1964 riots, Panama gained sympathy from around the world R22 for more authority over the canal, which became a turning point in the relations R23 between the United States and Panama (Greene, 2009). Negotiations between the R24 two countries took until 1977, when a new treaty about the Panama Canal was R25 signed. Agreed by Panama’s President Omar Torrijos and U.S. President Jimmy Carter, R26 new treaties promised an end to the United States controlling the waterway, declared R27 the permanent right of the United States to defend the neutrality of the canal, but R28 prohibited the United States from interference in internal affairs in the Republic of R29 Panama (ACP, 2009b; Greene, 2009; Harding, 2006). Particularly, the first treaty R30 mandated the elimination of the Canal Zone as of October 1, 1979, and agreed R31 that the United States would run the administration of the canal until December 31, R32 1999 (Greene, 2009; Harding, 2006). Significant changes were implemented: a new R33 R34

102 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

organization, the Panama Canal Commission, was established, with a board of five R1 American and four Panamanians members, and as of 1990, a Panamanian would R2 fill the position of Administrator. Furthermore, the treaty called for more skilled R3 Panamanians, as they would gradually play a greater role in the organization, and it R4 prescribed that Panama would receive a higher amount of canal revenue (Harding, R5 2006). The second treaty set out the Canal’s permanent neutrality and both countries’ R6 right to defend it (Harding, 2006; Llacer, 2005). Hence, much of what constituted the R7 special relationship between the United States and Panama no longer existed after R8 1999, and for the first time in 158 years (since the construction of the railroad), the R9 American military was absent in Panama (Gillespie Jr., Mc.Giffert, Grove Jr., & Nelson, R10 1999). R11 At the end of the 1980s, after nine years of dictatorship under military governor R12 Manuel Noriega and despite the agreements, the United States invaded Panama. R13 President George H.W. Bush had realized he could not control Noriega, which R14 seemed problematic now that, following the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, the countries R15 were moving towards a joint administration of the canal (Greene, 2009). After R16 large and bloody attacks on Panama City, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990 R17 (Harding, 2006). Immediately after the invasion, President Bush declared that he R18 aimed at safeguarding the American citizens in Panama, combating drug trafficking, R19 protecting the integrity of the treaties and the Panama Canal, as the waterway was R20 still under protection of the United States (Greene, 2009; Harding, 2006). R21 Panama’s road to recovery began. By means of close cooperation and extensive R22 planning among American and Panamanian members of the Panama Canal R23 Commission, working as one team with one mission, the countries worked towards a R24 “seamless transition” of the canal (Gillespie Jr. et al., 1999). In the years towards the R25 transition date, strong criticism regarding Panama’s capability to run the organization R26 of the canal was put forward in American media. Indicating doubt about the local R27 ability it was said that the Panamanians would “dance on the canal’s waters during R28 carnival” and were “never able to run the organization successfully” (Fieldnotes, R29 July 2009). Disregarding such critiques, the United States and Panama intensively R30 collaborated to handover the canal to Panama. At the end of this process, more R31 than seventy percent of all professionals and managers were Panamanian, as the R32 R33 R34

103 Chapter 4

R1 government of Panama had made provisions for some Americans and other foreign nationals to stay employed with the canal (Gillespie Jr. et al., 1999). The canal’s R3 Administrator has been a Panamanian since 1990 and he continued in this role under the new Panama Canal Authority (ACP). R5 On December 31, 1999, ownership of the Panama Canal was officially R6 transferred from the United States to Panama. A festive public ceremony was held R7 at the Administration Building to mark the start of a new era for the waterway. R8 From this date onwards, the ACP became exclusively in charge of the operation, R9 administration, management, maintenance, protection and innovation of the Panama R10 Canal. The autonomous agency of the government of Panama oversees the Canal’s R11 activities and services related to legal and constitutional regulations in force so that R12 the Canal may operate in a secure, continued, efficient and profitable manner (ACP, R13 2009b). Meanwhile, the United States remains in close relation with Panama. Their R14 collaboration is nowadays characterized by extensive counternarcotic cooperation, R15 support to promote Panama’s economic, political and social development, and plans R16 for a bilateral free trade agreement (Sullivan, 2011). R17 R18 Panama Canal Operations R19 R20 Throughout the more than ninety years since the Panama Canal opened, a transit R21 today is the same as it was in 1914. As time passed, several improvements have R22 been made: the Gaillard Cut has been widened, a storage dam was built across the R23 river Chagres, and the towing locomotives were replaced by more powerful models R24 (McCullough, 1977). In 1966, lighting was installed along the Canal allowing ships R25 to transit twenty-four hours a day (Friar, 1996). And, due to continuous landslides, R26 dredging remains an ongoing task for the ACP. But fundamentally, the operation of R27 the canal did not change from the day it was opened. R28 Explaining the operation of the Panama Canal is best done with the support of R29 a figure illustrating the profile of the Panama Canal. Figure 4.2 visualizes this profile. R30 With this picture in mind, I will explain a transit from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific R31 Ocean, starting at Gatun Locks. R32 R33 R34

104 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 Figure 4.2 Panama Canal profile (Photo by Karen Smits, taken at Miraflores Visitors Center) R14 R15 When a vessel approaches the lowest chamber of the locks, the valves at the first R16 chamber are opened so that, by gravity, water flows from the higher chamber R17 towards the ocean. This brings the water in the first chamber at sea level, and at R18 that point the gates open so that the boat can enter the first chamber. The gates R19 close behind the ship and the valves of the second chamber are opened to increase R20 the water level at the first chamber. This way, the vessel is lifted up to the water level R21 of the second chamber. The gates open and the vessel enters the second chamber. R22 When the gates are closed behind the vessel, the valves of the third chamber open. R23 This water flows into the second chamber and raises the ship to the level of the third R24 chamber. The third chamber is filled with water from the lake, so that their water R25 level becomes equal. Then, the gate opens for the vessel to exit the Gatun Locks R26 entering Gatun Lake. Once the largest artificial lake of the world, Panama’s rainwater R27 is stored at Gatun Lake at 26 meters above sea level. From the lake, the vessel crosses R28 the Panama Canal towards the Pacific Ocean. It passes a fourteen kilometer small R29 mountain range known as Culebra13 Cut or Gaillard Cut, in honor of the engineer R30 who was responsible for this part of the construction project (Ediciones Balboa, R31 R32 13 Culebra means ‘snake’ in English. This metaphor is used to indicate the writhing character of the passage. R33 R34

105 Chapter 4

R1 2010). To enter the Pacific Ocean, the vessel needs to pass two locks: the one-step Pedro Miguel Locks and the two-step Miraflores Locks. At Pedro Miguel Locks, the R3 vessel is lowered for about 9 meters by bringing the water down to the level of the Miraflores navigation channel. After crossing this 1600-meter long channel, R5 the vessel reaches Miraflores Locks. Here, in two steps, the vessel is lowered to sea R6 level so that it can continue its way to the Pacific Ocean. A complete transit takes R7 about 8 to 10 hours, while the alternative route of 13.000 kilometer around South R8 America’s Cape Horn takes two or three weeks. It is important to bear in mind that R9 ACP pilots are in command of the ships passing through the canal, which means that R10 the ACP is responsible for any harm made to the ships, their personnel or cargo while R11 transiting the interoceanic passage. Interesting to know too is that each lockage R12 uses approximately 197 million liters of fresh water from Gatun Lake that, ultimately, R13 flushes into the ocean. R14 The chambers of each lock in the Panama Canal have the same size: they are R15 305 meters long by 33.5 meters wide. Hence, the maximum dimension allowed for a R16 vessel to pass the Panama Canal is 294.1 meter in length, 32.3 meter wide and 12.04 R17 meters for the draft-depth. A vessel that matches theses sizes is called a Panamax, R18 as it exactly fits in the Panama Canal. In the lock chamber, vessels of this size only R19 leave about sixty centimeters of space on each side of the dock walls (ACP, 2009b). R20 Although vessels use their own propulsion to pass through the waterway, when they R21 pass through the locks they are assisted by electric locomotives using thick steel R22 cables to align and tow the ships. The objective of the locomotives is to keep the R23 vessels centered in the lock chambers, preventing contact with the concrete walls. R24 Depending on the size of the vessel, four, six or eight locomotives can be used. The R25 sailing direction of the vessels changes every half day. Ships cannot pass each other R26 in the narrow Culebra Cut, it takes time for the last ship to cross this part of the canal R27 before ships from the other direction can arrive. Consequently, daily, the locks are R28 empty for a few hours as no ship passes. R29 In 2009, almost forty vessels passed through the Panama Canal on an every R30 day basis (ACP, 2009a). A year later, ACP’s annual report showed a decrease of 0,8 R31 percent in transits, which reflected the effects of the global economic crises (ACP, R32 2010a). With the United States and China as top users of the Panama Canal, most R33 R34

106 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

vessels sail the canal under these flags. To transit the waterway, every vessel is required R1 to pay a toll determined by ship measurement parameters; the average toll paid for R2 a canal transit is around US$ 54.000 (ACP, 2011). To give the reader an idea: tankers R3 and container ships pay about US$ 300.000 per passage, and passenger cruise ships R4 pay even more (Versteijlen, 2010). R5 To support the development of the country, the ACP annually contributes an R6 amount of money based on the number of vessels passing through the canal to R7 Panama’s National Treasury. In 2011, the ACP Administrator, Alberto Alemán Zubieta, R8 announced that ACP’s contribution had reached a historical record. He revealed R9 that the ACP had estimated to contribute US$ 840 million that year, but expected R10 contributions for 2011 to reach closer to US$ 1 billion (Jordan & Garrido, 2011). At R11 the end of the 2011 fiscal year, the Panama Canal recorded a total transit of 322.1 R12 million tons of cargo, which is a 7,1 percent growth compared to the year before R13 and, at the same time, marked a record of tonnage traffic in the waterway (ACP, R14 2011). In a widely spread press release about these numbers, the ACP Administrator R15 stated that this milestone proves to be an extraordinary achievement in the 97 years R16 of Canal operations, and he emphasized that the high numbers reflect the ability of R17 Panamanians operating and administrating the maritime trade route (La Prensa 2011). R18 With this statement, the Administrator referred to the criticism Panama received R19 when the transition of the Canal came near, showing pride for the continuing success R20 of the canal. These numbers demonstrate that opponents of the handover, who R21 questioned the Panamanians’ capability to maintain and operate the canal in an R22 efficient, honest and secure manner, were wrong (Parker, 2009). Undoubtedly, the R23 Panama Canal is one of the driving forces behind the growth of Panama’s economy, R24 and because that economy and the country’s population are relatively small, these R25 numbers have a great impact on its development (Winner, 2011). In the following R26 paragraph I will give further insight into the organization managing the waterway. R27 R28 Autoridad del Canal de Panamá R29 With nearly ten thousand employees, the ACP is Panama’s biggest employer. The R30 organization is often referred to as a ‘country in a country’, indicating its separation R31 with Panama’s society (Fieldnotes, July 2009). When the United States had ownership R32 R33 R34

107 Chapter 4

R1 of the Panama Canal, the Canal Zone actually was an isolated area in Panama. Marked by fences, gates and restricted access, the construction and operation of R3 the Panama Canal was disconnected from the country where the work took place. With the transference of the canal, all these official borders disappeared. For the R5 ACP employees, however, these borders remained in existence. When leaving ACP’s R6 compound to go for lunch, for example, they said they were “going to Panama” R7 (Fieldnotes, August 2009). Moreover, the ACP employees feel unique in Panama’s R8 society. They work for an important asset of the country and receive privileges for R9 their affiliation with the canal company (Amanda, informal conversation July 2009). R10 Although the ACP employs a great amount of Panamanian inhabitants, it maintains R11 to be distinguished from their society. Consequently, the ACP puts continuous effort R12 in (media) activities to connect with the people of Panama. R13 Due to its unique nature, officially established in the Organic Law14, the ACP is R14 financially autonomous, has ownership of the canal’s assets and the right to oversee R15 and control these (Llacer, 2005). Similar to the Panama Canal Commission, the R16 organization is led by an Administrator15 who is appointed for a 7-year term, and can R17 be re-elected for an additional term. The Administrator and the Deputy Administrator R18 head the ACP and are supervised by a Board of Directors with eleven members (ACP, R19 2009b). The Board of Directors, appointed by the President of the Republic of Panama, R20 is empowered to develop strategies, regulations and policies aimed at promoting R21 and ensuring the competitiveness and profitability of the canal (Jaén Suárez, 2011). R22 Elected by the Board of Directors, the ACP Advisory Board is formed by Panamanian R23 and non-Panamanian professionals with broad experience in the business world and R24 the Panama Canal. Its members represent the world’s transportation, trade, business, R25 telecommunications, constructions and development, academia, and the banking R26 sector (ACP, 2009b). The Advisory Board meets once a year to discuss its views and R27 experiences for a better future of the waterway (Jaén Suárez, 2011). ACP’s higher R28 management is presided by the Administrator, who is the highest-ranking executive R29 officer and the legal representative of the ACP, responsible for the administration

R30 14 ACP’s Organic Law of June 11, 1997, provides the legal framework for the organization and R31 operation of the Panama Canal. The complete law can be found online at: http://www.pancanal. com/eng/legal/law/ R32 15 The term Administrator is used in most of ACP’s communication when referring to its Chief R33 Executive Officer (CEO). R34

108 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

and implementation of the strategies, regulations and policies of the Board of R1 Directors (ACP, 2009b). Partially, the Administrator can delegate his tasks and powers R2 to the Deputy Administrator. Alberto Alemán Zubieta was appointed as the canal’s R3 Administrator in 1990 and served two terms of seven years16. In these years, the R4 Panama Canal proved to be successful in Panamanian hands. According to Jaén R5 Suárez (2011), this accomplishment is due to a) an agreement among all political R6 and social parties to lift the position of the canal to a legal level allowing no political R7 interference in the operation of the canal, b) a new philosophy stating that the ACP R8 should be an independent public organization with high social and environmental R9 responsibility, subject to strict ethical codes, aimed at producing benefits for Panama R10 and delivering the best service for its (international) clients, c) the presence of high R11 qualified personnel, d) a modern and dynamic, technocratic and independent R12 administration, and e) the strong awareness of the historical context. Under Alberto R13 Alemán’s responsibility, the ACP developed an entrepreneurial culture focused on R14 operating the canal as a profit driven business (Rosales, 2007). Correspondingly, the R15 organization started a mega project to expand and modernize the Panama Canal R16 with an extra set of locks. In the following paragraph I will explain this mega project R17 and its components, of which the Third Set of Locks project served as the case for R18 my research. R19 R20 Panama Canal Expansion Program R21 R22 The locks are the narrowest points of the Panama Canal and form, both in the flow R23 of the amount of vessels per hour as in the size of the vessels, the bottleneck for R24 its capacity. In 2006, the ACP therefore published the Proposal for Expansion of R25 the Panama Canal: Third Set of Locks Project. This document neatly describes the R26 background of the Expansion Program. It elaborates on the history of the plan to R27 further develop the Panama Canal, and states that since the 1930’s, all studies about R28 the widening of the canal agreed that the most effective and efficient alternative R29 to enhance Canal capacity would be the construction of a third set of locks. Lock R30 chambers with bigger dimensions than those of the locks built in 1914 were perceived R31 as the most valuable point for development. In 1939, the United States started the R32 R33 16 As of September 2012, Jorge L. Quijano fulfils the position of ACP Administrator. R34

109 Chapter 4

R1 construction of a new set of locks that would allow the transit of larger vessels and warships. Due to the outbreak of World War II they had to cease the construction R3 works. Personnel of the United States in Panama had to join the army and most construction equipment was assigned to military tasks (ACP, 2006b). By the end of R5 the war, the United States had lost its interest in expanding the waterway. Its fleet was R6 now so vast that the canal’s original purpose -avoiding the support of a two-ocean R7 navy- had been outgrown (Parker, 2009). Although much use was made for ferrying R8 men and materials for the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Panama Canal had no major R9 upgrades. In the 1980s, according to the proposal document, Panama, Japan and the R10 United States formed a commission that again studied possibilities to further develop R11 the Panama Canal, and again decided that an extra set of locks would be the most R12 appropriate alternative for increasing the Canal’s capacity. Furthermore, the report R13 relates to the ACP Master Plan that envisioned the canal’s future, confirming that R14 a third set of locks is the most suitable, profitable and environmentally responsible R15 way to increase the capacity of the Panama Canal. The expansion of the waterway is R16 estimated at a cost of US$ 5.2 billion and expects to generate approximately 40.000 R17 new jobs during the construction of the third set of locks (ACP, 2006b). Finally, the R18 proposal for the Expansion of the Panama Canal (2006) portrays four objectives for R19 expanding the Canal’s capacity: R20 R21 1. Achieve long-term sustainability and growth for the Canal’s contributions to R22 the society of Panama through payments to the National Treasury; R23 2. Maintain the Canal’s competitiveness and its added value as a maritime R24 route; R25 3. Increase the Canal’s capacity to capture the growing tonnage demand with R26 the appropriate service level; and, R27 4. Make the Canal a more productive, safe and efficient work environment. R28 R29 This document formed the foundation for a national referendum and marked the start R30 of ACP’s campaign to vote for the expansion of the Panama Canal. Funded by the R31 government, the ‘si’ (‘yes’) campaign overwhelmed the voters, especially when some R32 people believed that President Martín Torrijos Espino handed out packages worth R33 R34

110 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

US$ 35 to families in the poorer areas of the country in exchange for listening to his R1 speech (The Panama News 2006). Opposition to the project had no such financial R2 support, but managed to voice its opinion through various radio programs, videos, and R3 websites. The website El Centro Informativo Panamá 3000 (The Information Center R4 Panama 3000) led by Roberto Méndez, a Professor of Economics at the University R5 of Panama, for example, published four reasons to reject the proposal: (1) negative R6 outcomes for the economy, (2) lack of confidence in the government and the ACP, R7 (3) health and education should be national priorities, and (4) destruction of the R8 environmental and social security (Méndez, 2006). In an interview Professor Mendez R9 concluded that, based on his economic and financial analysis, the Expansion Program R10 makes no sense, and might even be a bad development for the country (Noriegaville, R11 2006). He emphasized that the ACP manipulated information for justification of the R12 project and stressed that the organization was too optimistic about the growth in R13 canal transits (Noriegaville, 2006). Martin Rosales, who studied the conflicts between R14 the Panama Canal Expansion Program and the local communities for his Ph.D. thesis, R15 agreed with this counter argument. He concluded that the ACP denied the complexity R16 and contradictions of the expansion project and underscored that a monopolized R17 decision-making process limited the space for counter rationalities (Rosales, 2007). R18 Despite strong objections from various parties, the intense governmental campaign R19 in favor of canal expansion could not be overruled. R20 On October 22, 2006, the majority of the voters, 76.8%, choose ‘si’ for the R21 Panama Canal Expansion Program (ACP, 2009b; Jaén Suárez, 2011). Although more R22 than sixty percent of the total voters did not participate in the national referendum R23 (Rosales, 2007), this outcome gave the ACP a green light for the Expansion Program. R24 A year later, President Torrijos announced the Cabinet Council’s approval for the R25 ACP to negotiate the required financial support package (ACP, 2009b). Ultimately, R26 in December 2009, these negotiations led to a group of credit organizations17 that R27 guaranteed a total of US$ 2.300 million for the Expansion of the Panama Canal (ACP, R28 2010b; Alverca, 2012). The mega project contains four key parts covering seven R29 components, which I will describe in the next paragraph. R30 R31 17 The following institutions invested in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: European Investment Bank (US$ 500 million), Japan Bank for International Cooperation (US$ 800 million), Inter-American R32 Development Bank (US$ 400 million), International Financial Corporation (US$ 300 million) and R33 Andean Development Corporation (US$ 300 million). R34

111 Chapter 4

R1 Components of the Panama Canal Expansion Program The entire Expansion Program is divided into four key parts. The seven components, R3 as displayed in Figure 4.3, fit in the four parts of the program. Part 1 covers the design and construction of the Post-Panamax locks. New lock complexes will be built R5 on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the canal (see Figure 4.3). These complexes will R6 have three chambers with water saving basis, a lateral filling and emptying system R7 and rolling gates (ACP, 2010b). Part 2 of the mega project contains the dry-land R8 excavation. A massive amount of land needs to be removed so that approach channels R9 and space for the new locks can be created. Most excavation needs to be done at the R10 Access Channel to the Post-Panamax Locks at the Pacific side (see Figure 4.3), where, R11 executed in four phases, it is expected to remove 49 million cubic meters along 6.1 R12 kilometer (ACP, 2010b). Part 3 entails the deepening and widening of the canal, at R13 Gatun Lake and the Gaillard Cut, as well as its navigation channels (see Figure 4.3). R14 In order to allow bigger ships in the Panama Canal, extensive dredging is needed for R15 improvement of the exiting approach channels. This so-called wetland excavation is R16 done with a dredge, a machine that removes soil from under the water. Part 4 of the R17 Expansion Program is focused on the improvement to water supply in the canal. The R18 Panama Canal operates on rainwater that is stored in Gatun Lake. With the third lane R19 in the canal, more water will be needed and thus, more water needs to be saved in R20 the lake. So, the water level of the Gatun Lake will be raised with 45 centimeters, R21 reaching its maximum operational level (see Figure 4.3). R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

112 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 Figure 4.3 Components of the Panama Canal Expansion Program (courtesy of the ACP) R17 R18 The various components of the Panama Canal Expansion Program are divided in R19 numerous smaller projects and contracts. For example, part 2 of the program, which R20 is focused on dry-land excavation, is divided into four projects, called PAC (for Pacific R21 Access Channel) 1 to 418. In this research, I focus on part 1, the most prestige project R22 within the Expansion Program: the Third Set of Locks project19. Worth US$ 3.2 billion, R23 R24 18 As mentioned in the previous chapter, the students Lieke Rijnders and Catelijn Schönfeld studied, respectively, PAC3 and PAC4. R25 19 Often, the entire Panama Canal Expansion Program is called the Third Set of Locks project. This R26 is confusing for two reasons. First, it seems to refer to the dominant project in the entire Expansion Program, part one, while it directs at the complete Expansion Program. Part one, the design and R27 construction of the Post-Panamax Locks, is the ultimate goal of the Expansion Program, but the R28 other parts and subsequent components are needed to built and operate the new set of locks in the Panama Canal. Therefore, the Panama Canal Expansion Program entails all projects, not just R29 the Third Set of Locks project. Second, when thinking of a third set one wonders what the first two sets of locks are: those at the Atlantic and Pacific? Following this thought, one would think the R30 Expansion Program constructs a third and fourth set, at each side of the canal. ‘Third’ refers to the R31 third lane. Currently, the Panama Canal has two lanes in which boats can transit the waterway, but after completion of this mega project a third lane will be available. In this study I refer to part one of R32 the Expansion Program when stating Third Set of Locks project. R33 R34

113 Chapter 4

R1 this project is the most costly contract in the total prize of US$ 5.2 billion for this ‘civil engineering wonder’, as the Panama Canal Expansion Program often is called. R3 The objective of the locks project is to design and construct bigger lock chambers with water-saving basins that can reuse the water before it is shed in the ocean. Each R5 chamber of the new locks should measure 427 meters long and 55 meters wide. R6 This would allow giant container cargo ships, called Post-Panamax, measuring 366 R7 meters in length, 49 meters wide and 15 meters for the draft-depth, to pass through R8 the Panama Canal. Figure 4.4 illustrates a comparison between the measurements of R9 the existing locks, the new locks and the ships that can pass through the chambers R10 of these locks. R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 Figure 4.4 Measurements of the locks (ACP, 2010b) R23 R24 R25 In the new situation, every time a vessel transits, the water-saving basins will save R26 60% of the fresh water in Gatun Lake, which would be lost without these basins R27 (ACP, 2010b). Instead of shedding all the water to the next chamber, or into the R28 ocean, the water is flooded into the water-saving basis. By gravity, the water flows R29 from the basins back into the chambers. Thus, the new locks will loose 7 percent less R30 water than the existing locks in the Panama Canal. A schematic explanation of the R31 water saving system is shown in Figure 4.5. R32 R33 R34

114 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 Figure 4.5 Explanation water-saving system (ACP, 2011) R9 R10 In 2009, when I arrived in Panama, the first milestones in the components of the R11 Expansion Program were visible; contracts were awarded for the major projects R12 and tender processes were prepared for subsequent projects to start. Significant R13 advances were seen in the field, where drilling, basting, dredging and digging of R14 the soil showed the first contours of the expanded Panama Canal. In the following R15 paragraph I will briefly illustrate the project organization in charge of the execution R16 of the Third Set of Locks Project. R17 R18 The Third Set of Locks Project: ACP and its Partners R19 R20 A key component in the Expansion Program is the design and construction of the R21 Atlantic and Pacific Locks. This project is handled by several parties: the ACP and R22 CH2M Hill on one side of the coin and Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC) on the R23 other side. The ACP hired project management consultancy firm CH2M Hill to support R24 and guide the organization of this world-class project. Together they form a project R25 organization portraying the role of the client in the project. GUPC, a consortium R26 consisting of four companies: Sacyr, Impregilo, Jan de Nul and Cusa, portrays the R27 role of the contractor, as the organization is hired for the execution of the project in R28 the field. In this paragraph I will give an overview of each organization present in the R29 Third Set of Locks project, and thus, under study in this research. I will start with the R30 ACP division and CH2M Hill, followed by the four organizations that joined forces in R31 the consortium GUPC. R32 R33 R34

115 Chapter 4

R1 ACP Although ACP’s organization has been extensively described above, I would like to R3 focus here on its division focusing on the Third Set of Locks project. Five departments report directly to the ACP Administrator, of which the Department of Engineering R5 and Programs Management is one. This department counts five divisions that are, R6 in one way or another, involved in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. Among R7 these five, the Locks Project Management division is dedicated to the Third Set of R8 Locks Project20. This division counts three main sections: (1) the Administration for R9 the Atlantic Locks project, (2) the Administration for the Pacific Locks project and, R10 (3) the Design Administration. Various staff departments support these sections. The R11 Expansion Program is seen as a separate company within the ACP because each R12 department sent representatives to the Department of Engineering and Programs R13 Management. Within the ACP it is said that the employees at Expansion Program are R14 “the chosen ones”, as each department selected its best employees to work on this R15 mega project (Fernando, informal conversation July 2009). R16 R17 CH2M Hill R18 CH2M Hill is a well-established consultancy firm in program management, with R19 its headquarters based in Colorado, the United States. In the 1940s, a group of R20 students started CH2M that in 1971 merged with an associate, creating the company R21 CH2M Hill (CH2M Hill 2011). Founded by the need for engineering and consultancy R22 solutions, the company developed into a worldwide organization employing over R23 23,000 people that provide engineering, construction, and operations services for R24 corporations, nonprofits, and federal, state and local governments (CH2M Hill 2011). R25 Specialized in project management, CH2M Hill has participated in numerous large R26 complex projects around the world. Consultants who play a role in the Expansion R27 Program earlier assisted in projects such as the Tsunami Reconstruction Program R28 in Sri Lanka and Maldives, Evaluation of Building Structures in Iraq, Expansion of R29 the Haifa Port in Israel, Wastewater Treatment Program in Egypt, and in the United R30 States on transportation projects including road design and construction, program R31 management and airport program management, among others. In the Expansion R32 Program, CH2M Hill assists the ACP with the management of the contracts, mainly R33 focused on the Third Set of Locks project. R34 20 The organization chart in Appendix 1 can give better insight in the structure of the ACP organization.

116 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

Sacyr R1 The Sacyr Vallehermoso Group is officially abbreviated as SyV, and commonly referred R2 to as Sacyr. Sacyr is divided in various business groups, based on the separate R3 organizations these companies once were: construction (Sacyr and Somague), R4 real estate (Vallehermoso), property leasing (Testa), infrastructure concessions R5 (Sacyr Concessions) and utilities services (Valoriza Agua, Valoriza Energy, Valoriza R6 Multiservices and Sufi) (Grupo Syv 2011). The headquarters of the organization are R7 based in Madrid, Spain, but the company is involved in numerous engineering works R8 worldwide and present in more than fifteen countries. The company is mostly known R9 for its knowledge and experience in building highways and tunnels, of which results R10 are seen in Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Costa Rica and Chile. Furthermore, Sacyr is R11 part of a consortium led by the Italian company Impregilo to construct a suspension R12 bridge across the Strait of Messina, a prestigious mega project that will connect the R13 island of Sicily with the Italian peninsula. Interesting to note is that, although Sacyr R14 presents itself as being present in various countries in the world, respondents in R15 the Expansion Program contested these international experiences (Fieldnotes, June R16 2010). Within GUPC, Sacyr operates as the consortium leader. R17 R18 Impregilo R19 In 1959, the merger of the four Italian construction companies Girola, Lodigiani, R20 Impresit and Cogefar created Impregilo Group, headquartered in Milan and listed R21 on the Italian Stock Exchange (Impregilo 2011). Impregilo has made a name for itself R22 as one of the principal actors in worldwide construction, and throughout its history R23 has built thousands of kilometers of communication infrastructure, roads, railroads, R24 bridges, viaducts, tunnels, airports, hospitals and some of the most modern subways, R25 as well as major hydroelectric plants and dams. With over 22,000 employees and R26 operations in more than thirty countries, Impregilo is one of the world’s top-ranking R27 construction groups that currently participates in many large infrastructural mega R28 projects, such as the construction of the Gottard Base Tunnel in the Swiss Alps, R29 the building of hydroelectric plants in Colombia, the construction of the central R30 regional railways in Venezuela, and, in Italy, Impregilo operates as the consortium R31 leader for the prestige project of the bridge across the Strait of Messina (Impregilo R32 2011). Furthermore, in Brazil the company is one of the major highway and R33 R34

117 Chapter 4

R1 logistics operators. Respondents have described Impregilo as a company with wide international experience that brought employees with a high degree of technical R3 knowledge to the Expansion Program (Fieldnotes, March 2010).

R5 Jan de Nul R6 The family owned Jan de Nul Group ranks at the top of the international dredging R7 industry. The company is one of the largest contractors in Belgium and expanding its R8 services in the offshore oil and gas industry, while its environmental division, Envisan, R9 is specialized in soil remediation and ground water redevelopment (Jan de Nul 2011). R10 Jan de Nul, often abbreviated as JdN, has performed large-scale projects in various R11 areas of the world; construction of Palm Jebel Ali Island in Dubai, extension of the R12 quay wall and container terminal in Uruguay, beach regeneration in Mexico, and in R13 Belgium, Jan de Nul constructed Europe’s largest wastewater treatment plant. Armed R14 with about 5,000 employees and an ultramodern fleet containing the world’s most R15 powerful cutter suction dredger (called JFJ De Nul), the largest trailing suction hopper R16 dredger (called Cristóbal Colón) and the rock dumping vessel (called Simon Stevin), R17 among another 50 vessels, the company has executed many international dredging R18 and reclamation projects from start to finish (Jan de Nul 2011). Within GUPC, Jan de R19 Nul is seen as a small, but well organized and experienced player (Fieldnotes, June R20 2010). R21 R22 CUSA R23 Constituted in 1955 by a small group of subcontractors, the company Constructora R24 Urbana S.A.21, CUSA in popular speech, developed into Panama’s leading construction R25 company. Over the years, CUSA has been active in the construction of roads, houses, R26 bridges and infrastructure areas, and it has furthermore played a role in the expansion R27 of cruise and container ports, the rehabilitation of railways, the expansion of the R28 airport and the construction of water treatment plants (CUSA 2011). CUSA was the R29 only local organization participating in the international public bid for the first dry R30 excavation project in the Panama Canal Expansion Program, and won out of thirteen R31 21 The S.A. abbreviation refers to Sociedad Anónima (anonymous society or anonymous company) R32 indicating a particular type of corporation that is similar to public limited company in the United R33 Kingdom and naamloze vennootschap (N.V.) in the Netherlands. R34

118 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

Asian, European and U.S. consortiums the right to move an estimated 1.3 million R1 cubic meters of sediment and earth on the Pacific side of the canal (Winner, 2007). R2 Strikingly, CUSA’s former Chief Executive Officer, Alberto Alemán Zubieta, fulfilled the R3 position of ACP Administrator for two terms. Besides its participation in GUPC, CUSA R4 also performs other projects for the Expansion Program, such as straightening the R5 Gaillard Cut, and in a joint venture with Jan de Nul CUSA is performing excavation R6 work where the new Atlantic Lock will be built. R7 R8 GUPC R9 Together, Sacyr, Impregilo, Jan de Nul and CUSA form the consortium Grupo Unidos R10 por el Canal (GUPC). This project organization is contracted to design and construct R11 the main component in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: the Third Set of Locks R12 project. Both Sacyr and Impregilo have a 48 percent share in the project organization, R13 while Jan de Nul takes a 3 percent share and CUSA obtains a 1 percent share. R14 Following this deviation, positions in the daily operations of the project organization R15 are arranged. The Works Management Team (WMT) is responsible for daily execution R16 of the project and reports to the Board of Directors, which is based in Europe and R17 represented by an Executive Committee. Sacyr was granted to fill in two high- R18 ranking positions in the WMT: the position of Program Leader and Atlantic Project R19 Manager. The position of Financial Manager and Pacific Project Manager were given R20 to Impregilo. For Jan de Nul and CUSA, two positions were created, so that these R21 companies are also represented in the WMT. In the Executive Committee, managers R22 from each project partner’s headquarter of are positioned: two for Sacyr, two for R23 Impregilo, two for Jan de Nul, and one for CUSA. The deviation of shares is also used R24 for how profit and costs should be divided and for the amount of employees that R25 each company can bring to the project sites. R26 In international politics, the formation of the consortium has been controversial R27 and a highly debated topic. Published via the Spanish newspaper El País, Wikileaks R28 portrayed that the Embassy of the United States tried to keep Sacyr, and thus GUPC, R29 from winning the contract for the Third Set of Locks Project (Jiménez, 2010). It is said R30 that the United States aimed for an American-based consortium to win the tender R31 process and therefore tried to damage the image of Sacyr (Jiménez, 2010). Another R32 R33 R34

119 Chapter 4

R1 cable from Wikileaks suggested that members of the Panamanian government expressed their concern about the Sacyr’s capability to run the Third Set of Locks R3 project properly (Wikileaks 2010). Consequently, there has been quite a lot of external pressure upon the consortium about its performance in this mega project. R5 For the reader’s comprehension, Figure 4.622 is included to illustrate how the R6 project participants of the Third Set of Locks project are related to each other. The logo R7 for GUPC was explained when GUPC introduced itself to ACP in a video message. R8 The GUPC Program Leader stated: R9 R10 Our logo is not just a logo, it is an attitude: we want to work together in the R11 construction of the Expansion Project. (Fieldnotes, October 2010) R12 R13 This expression indicates GUPC’s awareness for collaboration in the execution of the R14 Panama Canal Expansion Program. In the following, and final, paragraph of this R15 chapter, I will elaborate on how collaboration is a consistent theme in the Panama R16 Canal. R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 Figure 4.6 Partners in the Third Set of Locks Project (courtesy of GUPC) R31

R32 22 Note that CH2M Hill is not incorporated in Figure 4.6, as in the daily operations they support and R33 represent the ACP, and, at the time this figure was designed, GUPC did not know of CH2M Hill’s presence in the construction project. R34

120 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

Registered Trade Mark R1 R2 When I first visited the Miraflores Visitors Center, where the ACP proudly presents the R3 Panama Canal, its history and plans for the future to the wider public, the following R4 text attracted my attention: R5 R6 They23 came from many places and spoke different languages. Bringing with R7 them nothing but their desires to work and their hopes, they came together to R8 build the engineering feat that still marvels the world. Most came from Barbados, R9 but also from Martinique, Guadeloupe, Trinidad and Jamaica. Spanish, Italians, R10 Greeks, Hindus, Americans, Armenians, Cubans, Costa Ricans, Colombians and R11 Panamanians also contributed to the effort. They managed to understand each R12 other, started families, made fortunes, and exalted the country. (ACP, Centro de R13 Visitantes Miraflores) R14 R15 This excerpt illustrates that people from all over the world migrated to Panama R16 to work on the construction of the Panama Canal. Although they spoke different R17 languages and carried various cultural backgrounds, the employees who constructed R18 the waterway found ways to work together and to cope with the differences and R19 similarities encountered amongst them (Greene, 2009). Despite the power relations, R20 differing interests and local circumstances, the canal builders, and also the government R21 and citizens of the United States and Panama built a workable relationship so that R22 the canal could be constructed, operated and maintained. R23 For the Expansion Program of the Panama Canal, again, people come from R24 around the world to participate in this mega project. They speak different languages, R25 bring an abundance of cultures and, again, need to work together to achieve project R26 completion. Accordingly, collaboration was a recurring theme in its history and R27 remains a daily matter in the contemporary Panama Canal. R28 In the context of the current practices of collaboration, that are under study in R29 this research, historical pride for the Panama Canal needs to be taken into account. R30 When the construction of the waterway was finished, the United States took great R31 pride in this success. The achievement showed American power, technological know- R32

23 ‘They’ refers to the people who constructed the Panama Canal. R33 R34

121 Chapter 4

R1 how, determination and managerial organization; it portrayed what the United States could do for the world (Ives, 2010). When the canal was transferred to Panama, the R3 ACP promoted a great sense of pride for the Panama Canal among Panamanians. Later, the expansion of the Panama Canal was narrated to Panama’s citizens, and R5 beyond, as highly important for the future of Panamanians, the development of the R6 country and the canal’s position in the maritime world; it became a source of pride R7 for most Panamanians. R8 The Panama Canal has had, and still has, a great impact on the world, and so R9 does the world on the Panama Canal. The international trade patterns shaping the R10 contemporary global economy owe their existence to this very special waterway, R11 which, when expanded, will have a far reaching international impact through the R12 creation of new routes and the opening of new markets (Alverca, 2012). From a R13 national point of view, the canal is fundamentally connected to the Panamanian R14 national identity and pride as well as to the country’s ambition for economic growth. R15 Due to this global interdependency, all eyes are focused on this spectacular mega R16 project enhancing the canal’s capacity and giving access to a new generation of R17 container vessels. Expected to bring widespread changes and opportunities, the R18 world is awaiting with great anticipation for the completion of the ‘new Panama R19 Canal’. For the ACP employees it is a privilege to work on the “registered trade mark R20 for Panama” (Jaén Suárez, 2011). R21 CH2M Hill employees also burst with pride for their affiliation with the Panama R22 Canal Expansion Program. Many engineers had read textbooks using examples of R23 the American construction period of the Panama Canal, for them, this engineering R24 endeavor was “the place to be” (Matthew, Interview April 2010). Several engineers R25 gave up their high position within CH2M Hill to join this mega project, while others R26 even quit their jobs at other organizations to be part of the Expansion Program R27 (Fieldnotes, May 2010). R28 Another project narrative prevailed among the GUPC partners. For most of R29 the GUPC employees, the Panama Canal Expansion Program was “just another R30 project” (Fieldnotes, April 2010). They perceived the project as equal to other R31 projects in their careers and did not share the historical and cultural feelings for the R32 interoceanic passage. Hence, from the start of their collaborative relationship, the R33 R34

122 The Panama Canal: a look back to look forward

project participants’ emotional involvement in this mega project was distinct. How R1 collaboration came into practice and how the project participants in the Third Set of R2 Locks Project dealt with the cultural complexity in their daily work life is the story of R3 the pages that follow. R4 Part II of this book is dedicated to the presentation of the empirical data of R5 this study. First, and interlude provides a detailed account of the award ceremony R6 for the Third Set of Locks project, which displays how collaboration between the R7 GUPC partners began. In the chapters five and six I portray how project participants R8 made sense of their everyday work environment and illustrate their practices of R9 collaboration. In the last empirical chapter, chapter seven, we will get acquainted R10 with the chaperoning practices of the ACP and CH2M Hill. R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

123

Part II Knowing the Field

Interlude

Setting the stage for collaboration Interlude

R1 The Award Ceremony for the Third Set of Locks Project

R3 It is a warm Wednesday morning, July 8, 2009, when a room in ACP’s Auditorio del Centro de Capacitación Ascanio Arosemena fills up with people. In the R5 American era, this room served as the auditorium of the Balboa High School. R6 Today, the room is used for the award ceremony of the Third Set of Locks Project. R7 Today, the winner of the tender for this project, the biggest part of the Panama R8 Canal Expansion Program, will be revealed. R9 R10 Two years earlier, the ACP published the tender. As it would be a complex project, R11 requesting various skills and resources, not one company would be able to execute R12 this project alone. Collaboration with other companies is inevitable in mega projects. R13 From around the world, organizations spoke about forming joint ventures, alliances R14 or partnerships and, finally, several consortiums applied for participation in this R15 tremendous undertaking. R16 Three consortiums made it to the last round: (1) the Bechtel, Taisei, Mitsubishi R17 Corporation, (2) C.A.N.A.L and (3) Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC). On March 3, R18 2009, the three consortiums handed in their final proposal for the works on the Third R19 Set of Locks project. Sergio, one of GUPC’s representatives, vividly remembered: R20 R21 We rapidly designed a logo to print on our documents. We weren’t ready yet. R22 But that day, just before the closing hour, we carried twenty-seven boxes of R23 drawings and paper work into the ACP building. (Interview, August 2011) R24 R25 An official, public ceremony was held to mark that the ACP received the tender R26 documents of the participating consortiums. After bringing in the numerous boxes R27 containing drawings and documents for the Third Set of Locks Project, each consortium R28 was asked to present its price proposal in a closed envelope. Together with ACP’s R29 target price for the project, these envelopes were locked in a vault, of which only the R30 ACP Contracting Officer and the bank guarded with a key (Interview, August 2011). R31 For the ACP, an intense period of reviewing the technical proposals followed. For the R32 consortium, there was nothing left but to wait. Who will be awarded as contractor R33 R34

128 Setting the stage for collaboration

for the Third Set of Locks Project? The account below, based on a video of the event, R1 depicts the award ceremony. R2 R3 The room counts about 400 seats, all facing the stage. Its walls are decorated R4 with pictures of the Panama Canal. While the press is installing cameras and the R5 last preparations on stage are made, the attendees, all formally dressed, gather R6 and search for a place to sit. The atmosphere is calm and relaxed. Some people R7 shake hands to greet each other, others share stories or send messages with their R8 cell phones. A guard is listening to his walky-talky and the Contracting Officer, R9 seated on stage, reads through the schedule of today’s ceremony. R10 R11 The ACP is about to disclose the final results of the reviewing process. Consortium R12 members have eagerly waited for this day, because today they will hear how their R13 tender proposal was reviewed. With help of numerous external professionals, the R14 ACP reviewed all drawings and documents explaining each consortium’s plan for R15 the execution of the Third Set of Locks project. Reviewing was done in a hermitically R16 sealed building located in the ACP compound. All reviewers were obliged to register R17 before entering or leaving the building and it was strictly prohibited to carry any R18 electronic devices inside the building (Omar, interview September 2009). The ACP R19 had taken these measurements ensuring that no information would leak to the R20 public. R21 R22 Photographers take pictures of the consortium representatives, the ACP R23 Administrator is being interviewed, and a journalist tries to capture President R24 Martinelli’s words with a voice recorder. Also, the ACP Board of Directors, the R25 American Ambassador, CH2M Hill consultants, the ACP employees and many R26 other supporters are present. There is not enough space for all the spectators to R27 sit down, so several attendees are standing in the back of the room. When the R28 Contracting Officer announces the start of the meeting, the hum of voices is R29 slowly replaced by silence. R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

129 Interlude

R1 It is the Contracting Officer’s role to control and oversee that the tender process for the Third Set of Locks Project is executed in an honest and transparent manner (ACP, R3 2009c). It is therefore his task to secure classification for all tender documents, and to chair the Award Ceremony. R5 R6 After applause the Contracting Officer gives his complements to the consortiums R7 for their patience and clarification during the review process. From each R8 consortium one representative is invited to join him for a visit to the bank. Photos R9 are taken while the group leaves the room and a cameraman follows the group R10 into a white van from the ACP. Under police escort, the group is taken to a R11 building of Banco National, located less then a kilometer away. R12 Excitement is read from the faces of the consortium representatives. Some R13 straighten their suit and tie when they step out of the van; others have their cell R14 phones ready to take pictures of what is coming next. R15 R16 Besides the intensively reviewed technical proposals, a price proposal is needed to R17 decide which consortium wins the tender procedure. The price proposals were locked R18 into a vault at Panama’s National Bank and are, today, under supervision of the R19 consortium representatives released from the vault, which is located underground. R20 R21 After a welcoming handshake from the bank’s General Manager, the group is R22 guided through the building to the vault. Before entering the concealed room, R23 the Contracting Officer needs to sign a registration book on a table standing R24 against a blue wall. As the moment is approaching, more pictures are taken. R25 Then, with help of an employee of the Bank, the Contracting Officer opens R26 the vault. He uses his key to open the secured box and releases a transparent R27 box out of it. This is a special moment! Numerous pictures are taken, and all R28 consortium representatives pose for a photo with the glass box. R29 R30 Indicating they were present when the box was removed from the vault, all R31 representatives had to sign a paper before leaving the bank and stepping in the van. R32 The entire visit to the bank lasted about thirty minutes, was registered step-by-step R33 by cameramen and presented to the audience on a big screen in the ceremony hall. R34

130 Setting the stage for collaboration

Upon return to the meeting room, the glass box was placed at the center of the R1 stage. R2 R3 The crowd buzzes with excitement when the group returns. The consortium R4 representatives stay close to the glass box and witness how the Contracting R5 Officer opens it. One by one they review whether their envelope remained R6 untouched. Laughter fills the room when one envelope seems to be stuck in the R7 box. Removing this envelop from the glass box takes extra effort, and when the R8 GUPC representative receives the envelope he says jokingly: “I did not give it to R9 you like that”, referring to the creases in the envelope. R10 R11 In addition to the price proposals of the three consortiums, the ACP also placed an R12 envelop in this box. This envelope contains ACP’s target price for the execution of the R13 Third Set of Locks project; the total price that ACP analyzed and reserved for the cost R14 of the Third Set of Locks project. Sergio explained to me: R15 R16 This price is really important, because if your proposal is 15% over the calculated R17 price, it is disqualified from the tender procedure. (Interview, August 2011) R18 R19 The outcome of the tender procedure depends on both the technical score and the R20 calculated price for the complete construction of the new locks in the Panama Canal. R21 The technical score defines 55% of the final outcome and the price proposal counts R22 for 45%. The maximum score for the technical proposal was 5.000 points. GUPC R23 gained the highest score, 4.088,5 points, but the difference with the technical scores R24 of the other consortiums was relatively small. Therefore, the price proposals played R25 an enormous role. R26 R27 This is the moment all attendees have been waiting for: the price offers will R28 be revealed! The Contracting Officers is standing behind the stand where the R29 envelops with the price proposals lay on top of the glass box. To open the R30 tightly sealed envelopes scissors were already placed on the stand. While the R31 Contracting Officer opens the first envelope, the people in the room are silent. R32 One could have heard a pin drop! R33 R34

131 Interlude

R1 The Contracting Officer glances into the public; this is an exciting moment for him as much as for all attendees. When he takes out the file, his colleagues R3 verify whether he completely emptied the envelope. The Contracting Officer secures that every page is signed, the bid bond24 is included and whether no R5 further conditions to the price proposal are incorporated. Then, he reads out R6 the name of the first consortium, the Bechtel, Taisei, Mitsubishi Corporation, R7 and the price they have offered for the project. The Contracting Officer slightly R8 stammers, never before such big numbers were proposed for an ACP project: R9 US$ 4.185.983.000,00. R10 R11 All consortiums were asked to deliver their total price for the completion of the Third R12 Set of Locks project, and to add a provisional price for the work that the ACP might R13 request during the execution phase of the project. R14 R15 The number is placed on the big screen so that everybody can read the first R16 consortium’s price proposal. Bustle immediately replaces the silence; is this a high R17 price? A low offer? All attendees are curious to find out. R18 Anxiety is felt in the room when the Contracting Officer continues with the R19 next envelope. The document consists of separate papers, and it seems a little R20 more complicated to hold them together while checking whether all information R21 is there. Again, it is silent in the room. Consortium C.A.N.A.L has presented a R22 base price of US$ 5.981.020.333,00. The provisional price is US$ 0.00. And that R23 causes some fuss in the meeting room. R24 R25 The score for the price proposal was based on the three proposals that were handed R26 in. The lower the price, the more points received for the offer. C.A.N.A.L. demanded R27 a higher price than the Bechtel, Taisei, Mitsubishi Corporation, so they received fewer R28 points. However, C.A.N.A.L’s technical score was evaluated with a higher score. As R29 such, the last proposal was of overriding importance. R30 As it had been stuck in the glass box, GUPC’s proposal comes somewhat folded R31 out of the envelope. In contrary to the other proposal documents, this proposal

R32 24 By signing a bid bond the bidder guarantees the project owner that it will take on the project R33 execution if selected. This ensures the owner that the bidder has the financial means to accept the work for the price they offered in their price proposal. R34

132 Setting the stage for collaboration

is presented in a folder, decorated with a cover picture of the future works. The R1 tension in the ceremony hall mounts: who will be awarded as contractor for the R2 Third Set of Locks Project? R3 The Contracting Officer attempts to state the full price proposed, but half- R4 way through an applause forces him to pause for a few seconds; it is clear that R5 GUPC offered the lowest price: US$ 3.118.880.001,00. The GUPC representatives R6 shake each other’s hands and are congratulated by the people around them. R7 R8 As mentioned earlier, the price that the ACP had calculated for the works on the R9 Third Set of Locks project plays a significant role: only proposals that do not deviate R10 15% from ACP’s price can compete in the final part of the tender procedure. R11 R12 When the Contracting Officer presents the ACP’s estimated price for the project, R13 his sentence is again interrupted by a loud applause, and screams from excitement R14 going around the room: GUPC has won the tender! R15 Sergio jumps up and shakes hands with his colleagues and full of enthusiasm R16 he hugs his consortium colleague, who is still seated and now nearly falls from R17 the chair. Supporters of the consortium stand up to congratulate the winners; R18 hugs and handshakes come from all over the room. Disappointment can be read R19 from the representatives of both the Bechtel, Taisei, Mitsubishi Corporation and R20 consortium C.A.N.A.L., and the Contracting Officer finalizes the meeting by R21 stating the official end results: the consortium Grupo Unidos por el Canal gained R22 the highest score in the tender process for the Third Set of Locks project. R23 R24 After the public ceremony a committee of ACP employees (the Price Verification R25 Committee) and the Contracting Officer confirmed that GUPC’s price proposal R26 met the general requirements of the Panama Canal Authority (ACP, 2009d). This R27 event signaled the start of collaboration between the project partners: GUPC was R28 contracted for the execution of the Third Set of Locks Project as part of the Panama R29 Canal Expansion Program. Table I.1 shows how the total score for the tender process R30 is composed and how many points each consortium gained for both the technical R31 proposal as well as the price proposal. R32 R33 R34

133 Interlude

R5 R6 R7 New post panamax locks design New R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 The works include deepening the approach channel to 15.5 below mean low water level, level, water mean low 15.5 below channel to include deepening the approach works The an and excavating of material some 14.8 million cubic meters dredging which will require of material. additional 800,000 cubic meters channel from access widen the Atlantic to will be dredged 13.8 km. of approximately area An the new locks on and the north channel to a minimum 225 meters to access its 198 meters a minimum 218 meters. side to Atlantic SetDesign and ConstructionThird of Locks of the for the design the contract awarded the ACP with the bidding process, compliance Following consortium on to Grupo Unidos por el Canal Set of Locks Third and construction of the 15, 2009. July as proposal and price for technical consortium score The obtained the highest combined 8, 2009. held on July a public ceremony during revealed R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 2009d) (ACP, Set of Locks Project for tender consortiums in Third score Total R32 Dredging of the Atlantic Entrance Navigational Channel Entrance Navigational Dredging of the Atlantic Atlantic of the Canal’s for the dredging the contract awarded On 28, 2009, the ACP September n.v. de Nul Jan Belgian company to entrance negotiated the lowest-price following awarded was $89.6 million, the contract a total At bidding process. submitted proposals price or consortia the companies and their corresponding are Following 9: on September R33 I.1 Table 4 R34

134 Setting the stage for collaboration

Soon after the award ceremony the ACP made the outcomes publicly known. Table R1 I.1 was published on their website, sent to various press agencies and printed in their R2 brochure about the Panama Canal Expansion Program (ACP, 2009d). R3 The table shows the technical score that each consortium received for their R4 proposal as well as the price they put in for the execution of their project plan. R5 GUPC won the tender process because they gained the highest points. However, the R6 difference between their technical score and that of the C.A.N.A.L consortium is not R7 that big: only 115 points. More interesting is the distinction in the price proposal; R8 GUPC requested a price that is 190% lower than that of its competitor. Furthermore, R9 GUPC’s price appeared to be US$ 300 million lower than the amount that ACP had R10 reserved for the execution of the project. Striking as this is, proposed prices in the R11 infrastructural sector are frequently higher than the budgeted price (Flyvbjerg, Holm, R12 & Buhl, 2002). GUPC’s competitors placed a bid much higher than ACP’s allocated R13 funds for this project, and it was said that GUPC had “left money on the table” R14 (Fieldnotes, 2009). R15 On July 15 2009, GUPC received an official letter of acceptance to commence R16 work on the Third Set of Locks project (GUPC, 2011). Several official procedures had R17 to be completed before the ACP issued the final order to proceed. A green light came R18 on August 25 2009; from that date onwards GUPC had 1,883 days to complete the R19 works. Pressure to complete the project before this date lies in a fine of US$ 300.000 R20 per extra day, and if GUPC finalizes the execution of the Third Set of Locks Project in R21 less time, they receive a bonus of US$ 250.000 per day (Fieldnotes, September 2009). R22 R23 The day after… R24 R25 On the evening of the award ceremony the GUPC representatives celebrated their R26 victory: they drank champagne and had dinner at an upscale restaurant in the Panama R27 City. Sergio recalled an emotional relief after the intense tender process: R28 R29 I think we were with about ten people, and we had champagne. When I arrived R30 home that night, I cried. That evening, two years of hard work, the excitement R31 of the day and all emotions that came with it put tears on my cheeks. However, R32 R33 R34

135 Interlude

R1 there was no time for further reflection on the tender process, as the project organization had to start up quickly. (Interview, August 2011). R3 A few days after the award ceremony, Sacyr’s private jet brought all GUPC’s R5 representatives from Panama to Milan, Italy, for a steering committee meeting. This R6 meeting was organized to define the structure and to decide how collaboration R7 between the GUPC partners would go from here. To everyone’s surprise, one of the R8 partners did not show up, which caused uproar within the consortium (Fieldnotes, R9 September 2009). R10 Frustration grew among GUPC’s partners when their proposed price for the R11 mega project appeared to be low compared to what the other consortiums had R12 requested as well as what ACP had calculated the works would cost. Word goes R13 that some partners of the GUPC consortium did not know the final price proposed R14 until it was publically announced, after the award ceremony, and therefore felt anger R15 and disappointment for the unbeneficial financial contract (Fieldnotes, September R16 2009). Owing to this price conflict, GUPC’s position was stringent from the start; a R17 tight budget would restrain the project organization from being flexible. A project R18 participant remembered: R19 R20 The top management of the European companies had not been entirely involved R21 in the final stage of the tender process. Only after we won, they heard about the R22 price we had proposed, and that is when the shit hit the fan. (Interview August R23 2011) R24 R25 The respondent clarified that when the partners’ top management learned about R26 the final budget, difficulties in GUPC’s collaboration occurred. It is remarkable that R27 for such a prestigious project the top management of a participating company was R28 not involved in the tender process. Accordingly, GUPC’s final price now stipulated the R29 collaborative relationship among its project partners. R30 The frictions about GUPC’s budget for the execution of the Third Set of Locks R31 Project resulted in tense discussions about how the profit and costs within the R32 endeavor should be divided, which put an enormous pressure on the collaborative R33 R34

136 Setting the stage for collaboration

relationship between the partners. Various respondents explained that conflicting R1 ideas about how the project organization should be set up, about the amount of R2 persons that each partner can deliver and about how authority should be allocated R3 created more difficulties with GUPC. R4 Besides the conflicts with regard to the price proposal and the deviation of profits R5 and costs, complications occurred with relation to the transition from the tender R6 phase to the execution phase. For most participants of the tender process their task R7 was considered to be finished when the final tender was handed over to the ACP. R8 Luis explained: R9 R10 There was a big organization up to the, I would say, award time. That organization R11 dissolved after July 8 and everybody went back to his or her normal tasks in R12 their different companies. A new organization had to be created for the project R13 execution. (Interview May 2010) R14 R15 Luis underscored that many employees participating in the formation of the tender R16 proposal were not appointed to the newly created project organization. Few R17 employees, who had prepared GUPC’s tender documents and were closely involved R18 in the development of the consortium’s viewpoints, plans and negotiations, had R19 been transferred to the execution phase of the project. As such, most background R20 information on the proposal disappeared. Moreover, the project philosophy as well R21 as the evolved collaborative relationship among the partners vanished. One of the R22 ‘tender’ employees illustrated: R23 R24 So, the people who are here now don’t really know, I think most of them haven’t R25 taken the initiative to sit down, take all the paperwork, read it, understand what R26 we planned and how we envisioned this project. Most of the people have not R27 even read the contract; they don’t know the specs that we promised to the R28 client... (Interview March 2010) R29 R30 Indeed, numerous respondents indicated they had not read the tender documents R31 or the contract that GUPC signed with the ACP. The image came to the fore that the R32 R33 R34

137 Interlude

R1 tender document was stored on a shelf and was only consulted when clashes with the client occurred, for legal aid purposes (Fieldnotes, April 2010). From my observations, R3 it seemed that project participants were too busy starting up the execution works and reserved no time for an in-depth understanding of the tender documents and R5 the contract with the ACP. In the hustle and bustle of commencing the field activities R6 employees leaped in the tasks that had to be completed rather sooner than later, R7 hence activities addressing sharing knowledge and reflecting on the tender phase R8 shifted to the background. R9 In this interlude I portrayed how a sweet victory left a bitter taste for GUPC. I R10 have described the award ceremony for the Third Set of Locks project, indicating R11 the start of a collaborative process among GUPC partners, and detected two R12 aspects strongly influencing the relationship between the project participants of the R13 consortium. First, the proposed price for the construction of the mega project caused R14 tensions. When participating companies learned this price was much lower than R15 the amount of money that the ACP had allocated for the mega project, frustration R16 amongst the GUPC partners grew. Consequently, intense discussions surfaced about R17 the deviation of profits and costs. Second, the separation between the tender phase R18 and execution phase of the project created difficulties in the project performance. R19 A loss of knowledge and understanding of how the final proposal was constructed R20 occurred, and the project’s philosophy was not translated to the employees in the R21 field. R22 This interlude gave the reader further insight into the background of the R23 collaboration within GUPC. The context portrayed here is key for understanding the R24 following two empirical chapters, in which I will focus on how collaboration came R25 about between the GUPC project participants. R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

138 Chapter 5

Practices within the GUPC

project organization:

Diminishing Collaboration Chapter 5

R1 Introduction

R3 In this first empirical chapter25 I will portray how collaboration was manifested between project participants of Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC). More specifically, R5 I will expose the practices of collaboration that came to the fore within GUPC’s R6 project organization. In the context of the tense and acrimonious situation, project R7 participants looked for something to hold on to. They searched for commonalities, R8 routines and traditions supporting them in understanding the complexity of the R9 project organization. With a focus on their everyday practices, I aim to unravel how R10 actors made sense of, and gave sense to, the GUPC work environment. R11 This chapter is structured as follows. The first paragraph will portray the R12 metaphors that project participants applied for describing their work environment. R13 These metaphors reflect the context as discussed in the previous chapter and R14 explain how project participants cope with the cultural complexity in the project R15 organization. In the second paragraph I will elaborate on the practice of labeling R16 cultures, which illustrates how project participants make sense of the various R17 cultures coming together on the work floor. By describing the practice of marking R18 boundaries, in the third paragraph, I will demonstrate how spatial settings played a R19 role in the collaboration within GUPC. In the forth paragraph I focus on how actors R20 were searching for structure in their organization. The last paragraph captures these R21 practices into diminishers of collaboration. R22 R23 Using Metaphors R24 R25 Representing an object, action or situation, metaphors are used as abstract R26 constructions that enact the development of thoughts and subjective interpretations R27 of the situation. Their figurative comparison symbolizes the project participants’ R28 opinions and feelings about the project organization and provides information about R29 their understanding of the situation. It can help the actors making their intangible R30 thoughts tangible, to highlight certain aspects of the situation or to give meaning R31 25 I have presented parts of this chapter at the 13th APROS Colloquium, 6-9 December 2009 in R32 Monterrey, at the 6th Making Projects Critical Workshop, 16-17 April 2012 in Manchester, and at the R33 EURAM Conference, 6-8 June 2012 in Rotterdam. R34

140 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

to their experiences. Furthermore, metaphors can change vague ideas and elusive R1 feelings into rich accounts and vivid images. They connote meanings on a cognitive, R2 emotional and behavioral level in a holistic manner (Sackmann, 1989). The analysis R3 of metaphors enables access to the actors’ first-order conceptions of organizational R4 dimensions, it reveals interactions between them and provides a window to R5 organizational identities (Hercleaous & Jacobs, 2008). In doing so, metaphors offer R6 a viable, novel understanding of the project organization. They are a rich source R7 for understanding the actors’ shared views of the project organization and give us R8 insight into the relationship between the project partners and how its actors have R9 experienced this. Within GUPC, I distinguished two kinds of metaphors. Process R10 metaphors symbolized the process of collaboration between project participants. R11 These images, war metaphors, marriage metaphors and the metaphor of ‘climbing a R12 mountain’ signify the project participants’ thoughts and feelings about their mutual R13 relationship. Project metaphors represent the actors’ perspectives on the project R14 organization. Images referring to animals and a governmental institution embodied R15 the project participants’ ideas on the project organization. R16 R17 Process metaphor: ‘It’s like a war’ R18 Illustrating their experiences about their relationship, project participants often used R19 a war metaphor. The Program Leader, for example, revealed: R20 R21 It’s like a battlefield. […] You either shoot or you are dead. […] In this organization R22 it’s like a war in the sense that it’s strategy, it’s logistics, it’s tactics, it’s…(sigh) R23 politics. You need politics in order to back up your action in the field. [It is] a R24 twenty-first century war. (Interview, December 2009) R25 R26 The Program Leader referred to the tense situation between Sacyr, Impregilo, Jan de R27 Nul and CUSA, directly after it became known that GUPC had won the tender for the R28 Third Set of Locks project. In this phase, the project partners discussed the final price R29 proposal and debated about how the project organization should be set-up. The R30 heated discussions were described as a ‘battle field’ and, from this moment onwards, R31 the project partners were ‘at war’. Ben, an Impregilo engineer, explained: R32 R33 R34

141 Chapter 5

R1 At the starting point, it is like in the war. You don’t have time to socialize or, you have, but you don’t do it. You are so embedded in the work and you won’t R3 adjust to each other. […] Like in a war, you have to get there, everybody is running and you have no time. (Interview, June 2010) R5 R6 Ben denoted that the complexity of the situation did not lend itself for social activities R7 or reflection on the process of collaboration. The war analogy emphasized that R8 the project participants were focused on one single goal, like winning a war, but R9 signifying project execution. Furthermore, the metaphor of war was applied to the R10 everyday atmosphere within GUPC. Sergio, for example, described: R11 R12 Being in fights between the companies, in which both are right and wrong, I R13 cannot do that anymore. It was like being in a battlefield, seeing the bullets R14 flying around and not knowing in what direction to run. [It was] too much for R15 me. (Interview, March 2010) R16 R17 Sergio illustrated the complexity of the situation and confessed losing sight of how R18 the organization was structured and how processes were being dealt with. In fact, he R19 stepped out of the organization for a certain period of time to reflect on the internal R20 dynamics within collaboration and to decide upon his position in the whole. R21 Reflecting several connotations, the war metaphor was applied to describe the R22 collaborative relationship between project participants. First of all, the metaphor R23 symbolized an intense conflict between parties. As other terms expressing a R24 disagreement or a dispute were not sufficient, actors applied the terminology of a R25 war. Second, the metaphor indicated a bloody manner for resolving issues. Using R26 this metaphor suggests that parties were in mortal combat with each other and R27 that no other solutions to settle the dispute were possible. Third, as war often R28 entails international struggles and complicated politics, the metaphor explains the R29 international and political aspect of the situation. What is more, the war metaphor R30 is a longstanding literary term that has been widely used to express the fight of R31 R32 R33 R34

142 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

conflict, as ‘the war on drugs26’ and ‘the war on terrorism27’ illustrate. Indicating the R1 process of collaboration with such a commonly known reference supports actors in R2 understanding certain actions and interactions. As such, metaphors are powerful R3 weapons in the process of sense making that help project participants shaping their R4 way of thinking, and that of others. R5 R6 Process metaphor: Arranged marriage R7 Another commonly used metaphor in GUPC’s project organization is the marriage R8 metaphor. Frequently, project participants applied this metaphor to explicate their R9 perspective on the collaborative relationship between the project partners. As R10 Annabelle, the Contracts Officer, claimed: R11 R12 Working for joint ventures is like a marriage. At the beginning everything is okay. R13 We are going to get married forever and it is very easy. We understand each R14 other very well. We are in love… And then, you have problems. Often a divorce R15 [follows]. But this marriage cannot be terminated until the end of the project. R16 […] Projects are like arranged marriages. […] After the end of this project, we R17 can divorce. (Interview, April 2010) R18 R19 Annabelle equaled collaboration within a project to a marital status of two people. R20 She made explicit what happens when the relationship does not work out: a R21 married couple can file for divorce. However, she emphasized, this is not a solution R22 in the relationship between the project partners. Bart agreed that a separation of R23 the partners would not be an escape, and he stressed that this option is rather R24 impossible. Nevertheless, he admitted that in the transition from the tender phase R25 to the execution phase the “love between the partners died” (Interview, June 2010). R26 Luis furthermore described the collaborative relationship between the partners as ‘a R27 civilized relationship’, indicated that it is purely a contractual relationship (Interview, R28 May 2010). R29 R30 26 First used in 1971 by the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, the ‘war on drugs’ was R31 launched to reduce illegal drugs trafficking and decrease the use of psychoactive drugs. 27 After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the President of the United States George W. R32 Bush announced a ‘War on Terrorism’ to denote a global fight against terrorism. R33 R34

143 Chapter 5

R1 Applying the marriage metaphor to the collaborative relationship within the project organization advocates an on-going journey, an enduring bond between partners R3 who promise each other to go through the good and the bad together. Furthermore, it suggests that a relationship is an investment for both parties, and that both parties R5 expect to receive something positive in return; it should be beneficial for those R6 involved. As mentioned earlier, the GUPC partners were not connected via a happy R7 marriage but rather stuck in contractual agreements that kept them together. In the R8 daily conversations, project participants used the marriage metaphor with a negative R9 connotation underlining they were condemned to each other. What is interesting R10 to note here is that the marriage metaphor was not only applied to collaboration R11 within GUPC, also between the ACP and CH2M Hill project participants applied this R12 metaphor when illustrating their relationship. Moreover, even beyond the Panama R13 Canal Expansion Program the metaphor is used; it is quite a common metaphor in R14 project management undertakings. R15 R16 Process metaphor: Climbing the mountain R17 The Program Leader compared the process of collaboration to ‘climbing a mountain’ R18 (Interview, December 2009). He underscored that the expedition is hard work R19 and difficult at times, but that the goal was easy: reaching the top. Following this R20 metaphor, the Program Leader described the current stage of the project: “we’re just R21 reaching base camp now; storing the tents and moving the oxygen tube” (Interview, R22 December 2009). He implied that the project organization was brought into shape R23 as people were arriving to Panama and project participants were getting acquainted R24 with their new work environment. At the time, GUPC had just accessed building 732 R25 in Corozal Oeste. Several employees, affiliated with the different project partners, R26 had arrived and brought their computers, paperwork and the -Italian- coffee machine R27 in order. The Program Leader emphasized that these steps were important for the R28 process of collaboration. He stressed: R29 R30 We obviously need to be watching the mountain to try to identify the right paths R31 to the top, to see the design. […] We need to be thinking in the right way and R32 not start in the wrong direction, if we do that we have to go back to start, we R33 will be losing time and energy. (Interview, December 2009) R34

144 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

Equally, Fabricio, the Pacific Works Manager, explained the development of the R1 collaborative relationship between the project participants. He described: R2 R3 It is step by step, it is not a matter to build the foundation. That is the big essay. R4 It is like when you climb a mountain. You have to reach 8000. Step by step. R5 (Interview, May 2010) R6 R7 Both respondents applied the metaphor of ‘climbing a mountain’ to the process of R8 collaboration and denoted the importance of familiarizing with the context of the R9 mutual relationship. R10 The war metaphors, the marriage metaphors and the metaphor of ‘climbing R11 the mountain’ symbolized the process of collaboration and emphasize how project R12 participants perceived the relationship amongst them. In the following, project R13 metaphors represent how actors gave meaning to the project organization via animal R14 metaphors and the metaphor of a governmental institution. R15 R16 Project metaphor: Animals R17 Frequently, GUPC project participants used an animal-related metaphor to illustrate R18 their perception of the project organization. Jack, a Service Manager, for example, R19 perceived GUPC as “a bunch of crazy wild animals who run around without having R20 an idea about where they are going” (Informal conversation, April 2010). With R21 reference to wild animals Jack emphasized traits as temper, instinct and distrust. In R22 the same way, his assistant, Elaine, used the animal metaphor when describing the R23 atmosphere in the project organization to me. She cynically wondered: R24 R25 Do you see us running around like a bunch of scared rabbits? That’s the craziness R26 about this office. And you have sensed the stress? Gosh, there is so much stress R27 around here… (Informal conversation, March 2010) R28 R29 In contrast to the wild animals that Jack referred to, Elaine described project R30 participants as scared rabbits. Typically known for being social and friendly, rabbits R31 live in underground burrows, where they hide when being scared. Elaine indicated R32 R33 R34

145 Chapter 5

R1 here that actors’ remained closely connected to their home organization and feared relating to a new home, the project organization. She furthermore signaled the R3 high level of stress within GUPC, indicating this did not benefit the collaborative relationship. Slightly different, but with a close link to the metaphor of animal, Bart R5 revealed his idea about the managerial level of the project organization: R6 R7 The goal was to form a Works Management Team [WMT] that would operate as R8 a unity. It should try to find unanimity on certain subjects, the organization chart, R9 the set-up of projects and investment. You understand? R10 R11 Karen: Yes. However, from what I hear the WMT does not operate as a unity. R12 R13 That’s an understatement! We’re just a bunch of individuals in the same jungle. R14 (Interview, June 2010) R15 R16 With reference to a jungle, Bart directed towards a chaotic environment. Jungles R17 are commonly seen as a place with abundance of animals and vegetation, but R18 also as places with difficult accessibility. Accordingly, the respondents applied the R19 animal metaphor to symbolize their view on the project organization and its internal R20 dynamics. R21 Another case in point is the metaphor of a circus. When describing his experiences R22 and thoughts about the GUPC project organization, Sergio firmly said: R23 R24 It’s like a circus here. They are acting like clowns. A bunch of idiots, that’s what R25 they are. (Informal conversation, January 2010) R26 R27 His reference to a circus suggests that the project organization is colorful and diverse, R28 but not structured. For example, in a circus many things happen at the same time, R29 which makes it hard to keep an eye on everything that is going on. Various strange, R30 funny, scary and amazing events take place in a circus ring, which makes it such a R31 unique place. Hence, Sergio translated his thoughts, experiences and interpretations R32 of the collaborative relationship within GUPC as such. The metaphorical illustration R33 R34

146 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

supported him to elaborate on his thoughts and feelings about the project R1 organization. R2 Using the animal metaphor entails expressing characteristics of behavior that are R3 commonly known for the animal. Often, animal-related metaphors contain negative R4 attributes of human beings, of which ‘dragon’ (to express evil) and ‘sloth’ (to express R5 laziness) are prime examples. Depending on the specific animal chosen, and its R6 context, the meaning of the metaphor can symbolize a wide variety of meanings. R7 Yet, within GUPC, its explanation usually reflected unfavorable features of project R8 participants or the project organization. Another metaphor reflecting the project R9 organization was a ‘governmental organization’, which I will briefly depict below. R10 R11 Project metaphor: Governmental institution R12 At another instance, project participants explained the project organization as R13 a ‘governmental organization’. Daniela, for example, expressed her opinion R14 about GUPC by stating that “it’s all very political and it feels like working for the R15 government” (Interview, April 2009). Bart expressed similar feelings about the R16 process of collaboration in the project organization, he said: R17 R18 This company, it’s just a group of fighting politicians together... (Interview, June R19 2010) R20 R21 With reference to a governmental organization Daniela and Bart aim at the negative R22 connotations characterizing this type of organizations: they tend to be bureaucratically R23 organized. Daniela did not appreciate the atmosphere she encountered in the project R24 organization and she was surprised by the way project participants dealt with issues R25 and problems: “departments continuously throw the ball from one department to R26 the other” (Interview, April 2010). Here, she did not literally mean that a ball was R27 thrown from one office to the other, she used the metaphor ‘ball in court’, which R28 is a figure of speech for responsibility: when the ball is in one’s court, that person R29 is responsible for the next move in a process. Thus, Daniela intended to say that, R30 instead of taking responsibility, project participants preferred to move the problem R31 to another person. R32 R33 R34

147 Chapter 5

R1 Metaphors cover a multitude of interrelated meanings. Project participants used metaphors to reflect on and develop shared understandings regarding the process R3 of collaboration and the GUPC project organization. By changing an abstract understanding of a situation or practice into a concrete explanation, a metaphor R5 can capture more than a thousand words (Sackmann, 1989). Therefore, applying R6 metaphors such as war, marriage, animal or the like, implies certain practices and R7 feelings that can be related to the basic meaning of its original context. Metaphors R8 do not only support actors in concretizing vague ideas, they also foster new ways of R9 looking at things and illuminate extant organizational relationships and dynamics, R10 and how this is perceived by its actors (Hercleaous & Jacobs, 2008). The practices R11 of using metaphors gave us insight into how project participants perceived their R12 organization and the internal dynamics within that organization. The metaphors R13 reflect the actors’ thoughts and feelings, as well as their experiences and interactions, R14 and they provided us with an understanding of cross-cultural collaboration in the R15 GUPC’s project organization. In the next paragraph I will explain the practice of R16 labeling cultures, which illustrates how actors clarified the culturally complex work R17 environment for themselves. R18 R19 Labeling Cultures R20 R21 In a project organization like GUPC, in which several parties (each carrying their R22 own cultural profiles) come together, it is almost evident that project participants R23 socially construct the cultural differences and similarities they encounter. Often, R24 individuals draw boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’ to articulate distinctions R25 indicating a group’s uniqueness and, as such, positioning their collective selves in a R26 unified, superior position (Ybema, Vroemisse, & Van Marrewijk, 2012). When trying R27 to make sense of the cultural complexity they are facing in the workplace, actors R28 tend to create categories representing their own identity and that of ‘the other’. This R29 process of labeling entails differentiating and simplifying, identifying and classifying, R30 standardizing and routinizing the intractable or obdurate into a form that is more R31 amendable to functional deployment (Weick et al., 2005). Translating the complex R32 everyday reality into stark, hierarchical contrasts deploys cognitive representations R33 R34

148 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

of their own cultural group and predisposes actors to distance themselves from the R1 cultural other. In this paragraph I portray how GUPC actors seek to paint a distinctive R2 picture of themselves in relation to how they viewed other project participants, R3 and, more implicitly, how others viewed them. It is not my aim to discuss the ‘real’ R4 cultural differences, but to emphasize the subjective interpretation within the project R5 organization and to show which labels28 project participants employed to distinguish R6 ‘us’ and ‘them’ in the process of collaboration. R7 Within GUPC, I recognized two distinct labels: the national culture label and the R8 organization culture label. The national culture label evolved around the national R9 identities related to the companies involved: Sacyr has its headquarters in Spain, R10 Impregilo is from Italy, Jan de Nul resides in Belgium and CUSA is a Panamanian R11 company. The organization culture label refers to the culture of each company R12 involved, and how others perceived this culture. R13 R14 National Culture Label R15 In making sense of the complex situation within GUPC’s project organization, actors R16 distinguished themselves based on nationality and stereotypes related to a specific R17 nation. In the project participants’ daily vocabulary, widely known images were used R18 as direct references to signify a certain cultural group. One such case in point is the R19 following example, in which Jerry, the Atlantic Design Manager, described how he R20 experienced working in this international environment: R21 R22 The Belgians just go-go and ‘you got to get this and that’; they dispense with R23 the pleasantries. The Panamanians and the Italians, nor the Spanish, are like that. R24 They don’t dispense with the pleasantries, they ask about your family and say R25 “Hello” before they say anything, you know, before they get to business. And R26 that’s not, that is often not the case with the Belgians. (Interview, June 2010) R27 R28 R29 R30 28 The term label and stereotype are used interchangeably. Oxford Dictionary describes the term R31 stereotype as “a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.” The term label is defined as “a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or a thing, R32 especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive” (Oxford Dictionary). R33 R34

149 Chapter 5

R1 In the example Jerry referred to a national culture stereotype about Belgians, illustrating this nation as straightforward, while he portrayed other nationalities as R3 less rigid and more open for a pleasant talk before going into business. He made it clear to me that the ‘Belgian-style’ of communication was not his preferred way R5 of working together (Interview Jerry, June 2010). Lee, a Contract Officer, stated: R6 “Panamanians work hard at night and then they don’t work during the day” R7 (Interview, April 2010) to picture his perception of the Panamanian work ethic. At R8 another instance, Simon, who was born in Belgium and affiliated with Jan de Nul, R9 illustrated the cultural differences among project participants with regard to work R10 attitude: “The Italians, they are go-getters, more than the Spanish!” (Interview, April R11 2010). And, about one of his colleagues he stated: “he is Italian, [that means] he R12 tries to find his way around things” (Fieldnotes, June 2010). Both Simon’s comments R13 reflect traits of other cultural groups: ‘the Italians’ as hard working people who rather R14 avoid difficulties, and ‘the Spanish’ as devious. His colleague Pablo, Pacific Engineer R15 for Impregilo and born in Italy, expressed difficulties in working with ‘the Spanish’: R16 R17 […] The Spanish are very full of themselves, you know? Really difficult as well […] R18 They are a little closed, we don’t know nothing about them. (Interview, March R19 2010) R20 R21 By labeling according to images of a nation’s cultural characteristics, project participants R22 gave meaning to the variety of cultures coming together in the project organization. R23 Pablo labeled Sacyr employees as ‘the Spanish’ in the project organization. He R24 described them as being “full of themselves” and “closed”, which indicated feelings R25 of distrust for this group. This example, and the ones above, illustrates how project R26 participants constructed meaning and enacted the national culture label. While R27 expressing a negative trait, or at least, a trait that is perceived negatively about ‘the R28 other’, actors, although subtly, implied that the project participants’ own group R29 would act differently or, better. Hence, invoking the national culture label articulates R30 distinctions and results in inclusion and exclusion of participants. R31 On the surface, the categories ‘the Spanish’, ‘the Italian’, ‘the Belgian’ and ‘the R32 Panamanian’ were easy to detect. However, various actors showed preference for R33 R34

150 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

generalizing these four different nationalities into solely two labels. Actors reduced R1 the idiosyncratic details existing in one group, and attached more general images R2 to a bigger group, resulting in fewer distinct social identities, and a more simplified R3 version of the cultural complexity. As a consequence, ‘the Spanish’ and ‘the Italian’ R4 were labeled as one category, set apart from ‘the Belgian’ and ‘the Panamanian’. R5 Among other aspects, perception of time, hierarchy and communication style were R6 experienced as similar for ‘the Spanish’ and ‘the Italian’ and were therefore generalized R7 into one group. Project participants highlighted these contrasts to indicate labels, as R8 was done by Ruben, an Atlantic Engineer Jan de Nul: R9 R10 I have worked in many joint ventures before, but here you can clearly see a R11 difference: the Italians and the Spaniards work a lot different than the Belgians. R12 They are less efficient. Yes, they work more hours a day, but they loose a lot of R13 time chatting with each other. Also, they communicate with drama, it’s like a R14 play in a theatre, and they take long breaks. That kind of stuff… (Interview, May R15 2010) R16 R17 With a focus on a significant perception of time and communication style, Ruben R18 labeled ‘the Spanish’ and ‘the Italian’ as a different category than ‘the Belgian’. In R19 addition, when I asked him to further verify his statement, Ruben used the national R20 culture label to explain how project participants deal with hierarchy: R21 R22 When the Program Leader visits the field everyone gets nervous or shy. It does R23 not affect me directly, but I can see that happening with others. They panic. It’s R24 like ‘father is coming and we have to sit straight’. This is a direct effect of the R25 hierarchy that the Spaniards and Italians work with. There is a giant boundary R26 between them. R27 R28 Karen: What do you mean by boundary? R29 R30 That there are big boundaries between the various organizational levels. For R31 them it is not common to sit together and discuss an issue. It all needs to go via R32 R33 R34

151 Chapter 5

R1 a pyramid of power. They have told me they noticed that in our company power relations are not so strict. Even if people from our head quarters come and visit R3 us, we just act normal. (Interview, May 2010)

R5 This excerpt illustrates both the use of the national culture label, expressing how the R6 respondent viewed other project participants, and, more implicit, it portrayed how R7 he viewed himself. Ruben pictured himself as part of the ‘normal’ group, while he R8 labeled ‘the Spanish’ and ‘the Italians’ with features of strong hierarchal relationships R9 in their national culture. As such, he distanced himself from this group, ‘them’, and R10 identified himself with another cultural group, that he called ‘us’. R11 When dividing ‘the Spanish’ and ‘the Italian’ with ‘the Belgian’, project R12 participants labeled these groups of national culture as ‘the southerners’ and ‘the R13 northerners’. These labels are based on the location of the home organizations in R14 Europe: Sacyr and Impregilo are located in the south of Europe, Belgium in the North R15 of the continent. Tom, who identified himself as a ‘northerner’ stated the difference R16 between the two labels: R17 R18 Some of us have the tendency to reveal all information there is on a certain topic, R19 whereas I prefer to stick to a simple answer to the question. Southerners should R20 be more aware of that, they don’t realize that what they say might be recorded R21 or used against them. […] Personally, I prefer to deal with the Northerners where R22 a boss is almost as equal as an employee. In my world we can call our boss by R23 the first name, drink a beer together and discuss difficulties or different opinions R24 we have. For them, that is rather impossible, they call their boss Don or Jefe, its R25 much more hierarchical. (Interview, May 2010) R26 R27 Tom described negative characteristics of ‘the southerners’, their communication R28 style and hierarchical relationship, while they themselves portrayed these traits in a R29 more positive manner: R30 R31 We southerners are more expressive; those northerners are rather cold and R32 closed. (Informal conversation, May 2010) R33 R34

152 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

With this comment, Luis expressed how he pictured himself and the colleagues he R1 assigned to the same group. At the same time, he illustrated how he perceived the R2 other project participants; he identified them as ‘cold’ and ‘closed’, demonstrating R3 that he does not trust this group. What is interesting to point out here is that at R4 some instances, the labels were not used in the same manner. ‘The Italians’ and ‘the R5 Spanish’ were seen, and labeled themselves, as ‘the southerners’ when talking about R6 traits they had in common. In those instances, they formed a group against other R7 project participants. However, when discussing the attitude to work, for example, R8 the label of ‘southerners’ was not applied. Then project participants focused on the R9 national culture labels to emphasize a distinction between the groups. ‘The Italians’ R10 were seen as go-getters, hard-working people characterized by a strong preference R11 for executing most of the project work on their own. ‘The Spanish’, on the other R12 hand, were pictured as oblique persons who aimed a subcontracting the work so R13 that responsibility did not lie in their hands. Hence, the use of label was situation- R14 depended. R15 When seeking to understand their new work environment and trying to deal R16 with the complexity and uncertainty in the organization, project participants found R17 comfort in the use of the labels. As illustrated above, labels referring to nationality R18 and to the location of the country in Europe were passed in review. Additionally, labels R19 with reference to the inheritance of the group members were initiated. Annabelle, a R20 Sacyr employee, affirmed: R21 R22 We have Latin people and English, Anglo Saxon. They are different and sometimes R23 they forget, how can I say, you think it is not polite. Okay? They are being rude. R24 You think: “they are insulting me” or whatever. […] They are Anglo Saxons, have R25 a more Anglo Saxon way of expressing; so in their reactions it seems they are R26 reluctant. Because they don’t express the reactions as much as Latin’s would do. R27 Yes, we [‘the Latins’] put everything on the table. (Interview, April 2010) R28 R29 Annabelle connected the Anglo Saxon inheritance to ‘the northerners’ to identify R30 them as a separate group as ‘the Latin’, which related to ‘the southerners’. The R31 same images were used by Jack, a Jan de Nul manager, when he spoke to me about R32 R33 R34

153 Chapter 5

R1 a conversation he had had with GUPC’s top management. Jack, in his late 50s, was told by the management team to “get rid of his Anglo Saxon management skills, R3 because those were too organized and too structured for operating in this company” (Fieldnotes April, 2010). When we had lunch he immediately put this in effect: R5 “They literary told me to become more Latin. That means more laissez fair, more R6 going around the procedures. Right, I’m starting today”, he said with a smile, while R7 ordering a few glasses of wine (Fieldnotes, April 2010). R8 What is striking in the data presented here is that the Panamanian participants R9 were often left aside; they were labeled as a separate group. Most often, the labeling R10 of cultures in the project organization evolved around the Spanish and Italian R11 participants (‘the southerners’) versus those participants affiliated with the Belgian R12 company (‘the northerners’). Even though the Panamanians defined themselves as R13 ‘Latin’ and others subscribed them similar images as used for describing Spanish R14 and Italian employees, they were perceived as a different category. When I asked R15 why Panamanians were not included in the constructed groups, the Atlantic Design R16 Manager stressed that Panamanians do not belong to any of these groups because R17 “they are from the wrong side of the pond” (Interview, June 2010). Even though R18 Panamanians might feel being part of ‘the Latins’, for other participants this was R19 not the case. They perceived the Panamanians as local employees, and therefore R20 as a different group. Besides the location of their country, I sensed that there was R21 a more political reason for excluding the Panamanians from ‘the Latins’ and ‘the R22 southerners’. These groups were comprised of Spanish and Italian participants, the R23 biggest parties within GUPC. If the Panamanians were included in these constructed R24 labels than they could be viewed as equal, while, when remaining a separate, small R25 group, their status stayed limited. Hence, the use of labels reflects and affects power R26 relations within the project organization. R27 We have seen that, while project participants try to make sense of the new R28 project organization, they feel comfortable in making references to nationalities R29 and national culture stereotypes. The project participants constructed meanings and R30 practices related to the characteristics they could connect to the national culture label. R31 I found that the national culture label was firmly embedded in the daily conversations R32 and practices in the project organization. Often, the actual discussions appeared to R33 R34

154 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

be about creating distance between the project participants rather than being an R1 enhancement of the collaborative relationship. Actors applied widely known images R2 to each other, and based on certain characteristics (e.g. communication style, work R3 attitude and hierarchy), created boundaries between them. The interpretations of R4 the cultural differences dominated attention for collaboration among the project R5 participants, resulting various group deviations. The following section, in which I R6 discuss the organization culture label, further explicates the labeling of cultures and R7 gives more insight into the political arena of GUPC’s project organization. R8 R9 Organization Culture Label R10 The previous section has shown that when constructing and creating categories R11 within the project organization, the national culture label is embedded in the actors’ R12 daily language and practices. Another strategy for GUPC employees to make sense R13 of the cultural complexity in the project organization was by referring to the home R14 organization. Images about the company, its cultural values and work practices R15 supported the subjective interpretation of participants about the groups existing in R16 the project organization. With illustration of the organization culture label, this section R17 shows how project participants identified groups in the process of collaboration. R18 Annabelle, who described Jan de Nul and Impregilo during and after the tender R19 process, gave a case in point: R20 R21 Impregilo is a big company that is used to work only in foreign and international R22 projects outside from Italy. So they have a core in Milan and people abroad and it R23 seems that they were not taking too much steps in doing the tender, you know. R24 It seems that they were doing nothing. And then when they started, [all of a R25 sudden] it was like a big machine in the field. Jan de Nul did it step by step. So R26 this was creating some difficulties, you know, because each had a different way R27 to work. (Interview, April 2010) R28 R29 Annabelle saw how the partners’ work practices differed from each other and created R30 difficulties in the daily collaboration: while Impregilo took a silent role in the tender R31 phase, they dominated in the execution phase. Jan de Nul, according to Annabelle, R32 presented itself deliberate by taking more cautious steps in the process. R33 R34

155 Chapter 5

R1 Remarkable to note is that Jan de Nul employees perceived their company differently. In the following interview excerpt we see how Bart gave me his opinion about each R3 partner, and how he pictured his own company:

R5 When you analyze these four, you see this: Sacyr is simply weak and I think they R6 have very little international experience. Okay, they have done some projects R7 in Latin America, but outside of that, nothing I think. Impregilo is a firm with R8 extensive international experience and they are relatively well organized. Of R9 course, they are a bunch of mafiosos… Jan de Nul, well, here you immediately R10 see the difference between ‘the northerners’ and ‘the southerners’: we go R11 straight to our goal; we don’t walk around the bush. (Interview, June 2010) R12 R13 Bart strongly framed the partners in a destructive manner whereas he extolled his R14 own company. While Annabelle experienced Jan de Nul as being restrained, Bart R15 depicted his company as being straightforward and direct. His colleague Ruben, an R16 Atlantic Engineer Jan de Nul, also praised his home organization to the skies: R17 R18 We are a small partner in the consortium and therefore less accepted. Our head R19 quarters had to work really hard to get us involved in GUPC. But if you look R20 outside now, we are present at every level of the organization. I think others have R21 realized that we are needed, because we speak very well English and we work a R22 lot more efficient then they do. (Interview May 2010) R23 R24 Extremely positive about his home organization, Ruben stated that GUPC would not R25 be able to operate without the presence of Jan de Nul. Bart verified: R26 R27 Jan de Nul is the most reliable [company] and gives the quickest replies when R28 it comes to a reaction from the home organization in Europe. Also, we have a R29 financially strong company. (Interview, June 2010) R30 R31 What is interesting about Bart and Ruben’s statements is that they pictured their R32 home organization as superior to the other participating companies in the project R33 R34

156 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

organization. This, however, seemed to be a strategy to counter the inferior position R1 Jan de Nul had in the project organization. As explained in the context chapter, Jan R2 de Nul was a smaller company within GUPC; it held a three per cent share. GUPC R3 partners agreed that each company could bring in a certain amount of employees R4 related to the company’s share in the project organization. As the amount of Jan R5 de Nul employees in the overall project organization was fairly small, their formal R6 influence was limited. The company worked hard to conquer a position in the Works R7 Management Team (WMT) of the project organization. However, a year after the R8 commencement date, a job description for this position was still in the making R9 because partners continued discussing the content and length of authority for the R10 Jan de Nul representative in the project organization (Fieldnotes, June 2010). For R11 the person in question, this created confusion, frustration and conflicts, because the R12 framework of his role remained unclear. As such, he remained dependent on the R13 decision of the WMT and was left behind with inferiority emotions. These feelings R14 were also sensed among other Jan de Nul employees in the project organization, of R15 which Jaap reminded me: R16 R17 Their [Impregilo] procurement process is super slow! Everything needs to go via R18 their home organization; it takes ages! And their payment procedure… Really, R19 they make things much more difficult than needed. However, I have to be careful R20 to make a remark about it. They are the bigger partner in GUPC, so we just have R21 to follow their rules… (Informal conversation, April 2010) R22 R23 Referencing to Impregilo’s dominance in the daily practices, Jaap expressed how R24 he felt obliged to follow the bigger, and more powerful, partners in the project R25 organization. Furthermore, Jan de Nul employees experienced difficulties in their R26 daily work regarding acceptance, and felt harassed by participants from other GUPC R27 partners. Ruben expressed: “sometimes it feels like they think we come from a R28 different planet” (Interview, May 2010). R29 Feelings of frustration and alienation had a tremendous effect on the collaborative R30 relationship among the project partners. I observed one occasion in which a Jan de Nul R31 employee had to leave the project, because collaboration had become impossible. It R32 R33 R34

157 Chapter 5

R1 was said that his communication style and work practices were not in line with those of his co-workers, while the particular individual said that he was bullied until he left R3 the job (Fieldnotes, June 2010). For this employee, who had arrived in Panama only a few months before, this implied that he and his family had to leave the country. For R5 Jan de Nul, this meant that the company lost a position to fill. And, by means of a R6 quick replacement, an employee from one of the superior partners took the position. R7 Both politically as well as emotionally, this situation had a great impact on the Jan R8 de Nul employees: the company lost a position, one that came with supervision and R9 authority, and the employees missed a comrade, a friend. R10 These incidents represent many other events in which Jan de Nul employees R11 felt overpowered by Sacyr and Impregilo. Statements like those of Bart and Ruben R12 illustrate how actors attempted to push their home organization to the fore. They R13 emphasized their home organization’s skills and importance to establish their position R14 within the project organization. This attitude did not remain unnoticed; in many R15 conversations within the project organization, the organization culture label for Jan R16 de Nul came to the fore. Jerry, for example claimed: R17 R18 Jan de Nul’s people are - they’re very different from the Sacyr or Impregilo or the R19 CUSA’s people. They’re very different in their approach to the work and their R20 demeanor is just much different that of the others. (Interview, June 2010) R21 R22 Although Jan de Nul’s employees felt inferior in the project organization, and were R23 seen as ‘different’ in their work attitude compared to other participants, their R24 presence did not remain unnoticed. They were seen as ‘the northerners’ and often R25 pictured as the other cultural group. Yet, CUSA was barely mentioned in distinctions R26 between cultural groups. Within the project organization, CUSA had the smallest R27 share, one per cent, and the company was often overlooked. In the statement above, R28 in which Bart described the four partners, he failed to mention CUSA. In a similar vein, R29 I noticed comparable attitudes in other conversations. Jaap recognized that “CUSA’s R30 influence is rather small” (Interview, April 2010). And CUSA’s deputy acknowledged R31 his position in the WMT: R32 R33 R34

158 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

We are left out on many decision-makings. I mean, if there is a vote, I will give R1 my opinion, but I am not pushing any issues anymore. Recently there was a R2 discussion about buying some special equipment. I saw the prices, everybody R3 except me agreed on buying the cheapest one. I said: ‘Well, I don’t know that R4 brand, they don’t have a local representative, I’ve never heard about it. So I R5 don’t agree on buying that. I would propose to buy something a little bit more R6 expensive, that I know they’ve got a representative, they’ve got spare parts, etc.’ R7 And everybody said that I was crazy… They did not even listen to my comments! R8 (Interview, March 2010) R9 R10 The interviewee felt ignored, and even though CUSA is a full partner in the project R11 organization, they did not feel treated as such. In this specific statement CUSA’s R12 deputy suffered for not being heard, but in other situations I have seen him agree R13 with decisions for the sake of the project. Decision-making within GUPC is organized R14 in a way that when there is no unanimity between the Works Management Team, R15 the matters are taken to a higher level, to the Executive Committee. However, this R16 institute needs to investigate the matter, which means that it would take longer R17 before a final decision could be made. Under pressure of both time and budget, R18 GUPC profited from quick decisions, and for that reason CUSA often followed suit. R19 As GUPC is working under high pressure emanating from the low price proposal R20 and the internal conflicts the company started with, topics as decision-making and R21 procedures were highly debated in the everyday practices. Participants felt the burden R22 and stress needed for efficient work processes. By means of the organization culture R23 label, they found explanations for the complex situations encountered. Applying this R24 label helped project participants to make sense of the struggles and conflicts they R25 faced in the project organization. Common images and well-known practices about R26 each company were brought to the surface to distinguish groups among the project R27 participants. This may be illustrated by expressions as ‘those guys from Sacyr’ or ‘it is R28 Sacyr…’ followed by a sigh, implying general understanding. R29 To give meaning to GUPC’s complex project organization, the national culture R30 label and the organization culture label were used intertwined in the daily practices of R31 project participants. Labeling project participants regarding their home organizations’ R32 R33 R34

159 Chapter 5

R1 nationality or characteristics supported actors to distinguish identities in the process of collaboration. Frequently, these labels were brought into action to illustrate, defend R3 and negotiate the political area within GUPC. Both the emotional connection that actors experienced amongst each other as well as the political strategies they were R5 confronted with, fed the use of cultural labels. Additionally, the various contracts on R6 which employees were hired enforced the use of labels. Sergio expressed a commonly R7 used distinction between project participants: R8 R9 The organization is split up in five groups: Sacyr, Impregilo, Jan de Nul, CUSA and R10 the Market People, which is the rest. This last group consists of people that were R11 hired by Grupo29, so they are not related to any of the four partners. (Interview, R12 March 2010) R13 R14 Building upon the different contracts, this distinction was widely used within GUPC’s R15 project environment. All employees who were affiliated with one of the four partners R16 had a contract with their home organization and received a salary and benefits from R17 that specific company. The ‘market people’ were employees hired by GUPC; they R18 had a contract according to the local Panamanian labor law, or, that of an external R19 consultant. One can imagine this caused confusion and frustration in the daily R20 collaboration of project participants: one employee earned more than a colleague R21 working in the same position or one team member had less holidays than other team R22 members. Sacyr employees, for example, were not used to work on Saturdays, but R23 since this is common practice for the other partners, they were obliged to come to R24 work on Saturdays in this project. Thus, influenced by a wide variety of salaries and R25 benefits, actors applied national culture and organizational culture labels to translate, R26 distinct and explain cultural groups within the project organization. R27 In this paragraph I have illustrated that labeling cultures is an act of cultural sense R28 making. While project participants search for a logic understanding of the complex R29 situation encountered, they bring their emotional affiliations to the fore and take R30 common images, well-known practices and organizational political manifestations R31 into account. The laborious collaboration among GUPC partners inclined actors to R32 29 Project participants often abbreviated Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC) as ‘GUP’ or ‘Grupo’. R33 R34

160 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

relate to cultural differences in order to position themselves and to safeguard their R1 interests, values and cultural practices. Competition among the project partners R2 encouraged the use of certain discursive strategies, such as constructing the R3 image of superior and inferior groups. During this process of sense making, actors R4 labeled the characteristics they encountered with the culture they could relate with. R5 Consequently, the translation and negotiation of practices resulted in the distinction R6 between the national culture label and the organization culture discourse. As such, R7 the labeling of cultures hampered collaboration in GUPC’s project organization. R8 Actors focused on cultural differences, differentiated and identified categories and R9 applied these to distance themselves from each other. Accordingly, the use of cultural R10 labels diminished collaboration between the project partners. R11 Apart from the labels connected to the national culture and organization culture, R12 a professional culture label is often found in organizations. Based on a shared R13 knowledge base, common codes for constructing interpretations and a collective R14 understanding of objects and events, professionals can form a subculture co-existing R15 in the culture of an organization (e.g. Bloor & Dawson, 1994; Mahadevan, 2012). R16 Within GUPC, however, this label did not receive much attention. Naturally, the R17 project organization accommodated various professions and members of the same R18 profession might have felt a mutual understanding, but this was not operationalized R19 into the everyday practices of project participants. R20 The practice of using metaphors and labeling cultures show how project R21 participants made sense of the complexity they encountered in their everyday work R22 environment. It illustrates that actors seek for common understanding and rely R23 on shared knowledge; they aim to find common ground. However, the practices R24 resulted in hindrances for the process of collaboration. Project participants held on to R25 categories, used metaphors with negative connotations and, as such, created greater R26 distance between them. In the following paragraph I will portray how the material R27 spatial settings affected collaboration among the GUPC project partners. R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

161 Chapter 5

R1 Marking Boundaries

R3 GUPC worked on one program, project participants divided it into two separate projects and executed it from three different locations. In this paragraph I will R5 portray how these spatial settings played a part in the collaboration between project R6 participants. It will illustrate how actors marked boundaries and applied these in their R7 everyday practices. As such, it demonstrates that spatial setting play an essential role R8 in organizations (Van Marrewijk & Yanow, 2010). First, I will portray the distinction R9 that project participants made between the Atlantic project and the Pacific project. R10 Subsequently, I will elaborate on the three locations from where GUPC executed the R11 Third Set of Locks project: Gatún, Cocolí and Corozal Oeste, and describe how these R12 influenced the collaborative relationship among the project participants. R13 R14 One Expansion Program, two projects: Atlantic versus Pacific R15 As described in chapter four, the Panama Canal Expansion Program runs from the R16 Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean through Panama. Project offices were located R17 on both sides of the 80-kilometer waterway. At each side of the canal, GUPC rented R18 office buildings from the ACP. At the time of this study, GUPC’s headquarters were R19 located among ACP buildings in the Corozal Oeste compound, close to Panama City. R20 By means of equal control in the project, according to its share in the consortium, R21 it was agreed that Sacyr and Impregilo each received authority for one project site. R22 Shortly after the tender phase it was decided that Sacyr would manage the project at R23 the Atlantic site and Impregilo took control of the project at the Pacific site. R24 These project sites heavily distinguished from each other. In the day-to-day R25 operations the Sacyr – Impregilo divide meant that the Project Manager for the Atlantic R26 site originated from Sacyr and the Project Manager for the Pacific site was associated R27 with Impregilo. Both Project Managers were entitled to choose personnel for their R28 own projects. This resulted in a staff that was based on the home organization: most R29 employees at the Atlantic project site were affiliated with Sacyr and most employees R30 at the Pacific project site were related with Impregilo. Additionally, the societal R31 perception of local employees in the area created a difference between the project R32 sides. In the Panamanian society it was said that local employees residing from the R33 R34

162 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

Atlantic area had a ‘Caribbean’ work mentality. This was reflected in a more relaxed R1 work attitude, a less strict perception of time and failing to go to work after salary R2 payment. In contrary, employees at the Pacific side of the country were perceived R3 as being more business-oriented, more formal and more professional than people R4 from the Atlantic side of the country. Furthermore, from a technical perspective the R5 project sites were very different from one another. The soil in the Atlantic project site, R6 called Gatun-rock, is a soft, siltstone-type of material that was easy to excavate. At R7 the Pacific project site, the soil consisted of robust basalt rocks caused difficulties in R8 excavation. After heavy rainfall, the soil at the Pacific project site was advantageous R9 because it remained solid under the pressure of heavy-duty trucks and excavators, R10 while the Gatun-rock at the Atlantic side changed into mud, blocked machinery and R11 congested the work process. Accordingly, both on a personnel level and a technical R12 level, the project sites heavily differed from each other. R13 The distinctions between the project sites were strongly enacted in the everyday R14 practices. Numerous respondents acknowledged there was very little connection R15 between the project sites. The Atlantic project site was perceived as Sacyr terrain, R16 where mainly Sacyr employees were hired and Spanish became the leading language. R17 Sacyr employees became known for their lack of English, which created problem in R18 the daily operations. The Expansion Program was executed in English and staff was R19 obliged to master this language. Other GUPC partners followed this requirement, but R20 Sacyr was short on English-speaking staff and this created friction among the project R21 participants. At the Pacific site, where Impregilo took control, English remained the R22 everyday language because the work force consisted of a mix of Impregilo and Jan R23 de Nul employees. Project participants did not feel like they were part of the same R24 organization, as Sergio lucidly illustrated: R25 R26 The Atlantic site is like an island, created by Sacyr. And they think they are the R27 supreme human beings, like they are the big bosses and the rest is shit. […] R28 When you walk to the canteen in the Atlantic you feel that people are watching R29 you like ‘Who is this Martian?’ (Interview, March 2010) R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

163 Chapter 5

R1 Sergio expressed antagonism towards the Atlantic site of the project. He was looked upon as a stranger and felt deviated from his colleagues. Often, project participants R3 did not seem to know who their colleagues were or what was going on at the opposite side of the Panama Canal Expansion Program. Moreover, project participants spoke in R5 terms of ‘competition’ and ‘conflicts’ when talking about a relationship between the R6 Atlantic and the Pacific project. Oscar, a Planner from Impregilo, revealed: R7 R8 These two [the Atlantic and Pacific Project Managers] don’t work together; they R9 are in competition. Our companies are competitors in the market, and in this R10 project we feel that too. (Informal conversation, May 2010) R11 R12 Although the companies act as partners in GUPC, in previous projects they were R13 competitors, sometimes even competing for the same projects. This historical context R14 affected the current relationship between the partners and that was, as Oscar R15 portrayed, felt on the work floor. R16 The physical distance between the projects underlined the boundaries between R17 the Atlantic project and the Pacific project. In most conversations project participants R18 showed curiosity about the other project site. Chris, who worked at the Atlantic site, R19 illustrated: R20 R21 We have very little contact with the Pacific. I would like to go and see what they R22 do there, but there is simply no time. (Informal conversation, May 2010) R23 R24 Actors admitted not knowing who was involved or what was going on at the R25 other project site, but stressed there was no time to gather such knowledge. R26 When I suggested that an exchange event could be organized in which Atlantic R27 project participants go out to the Pacific site and the other way around, Chris R28 replied enthusiastically, but remarkable enough: he was confident that the WMT R29 should initiate such an event (Fieldnotes, May 2010). He emphasized that it is the R30 responsibility of the top-management to initiate and create activities that help project R31 participants bridging the gap between them. Oscar too, underscored: R32 R33 R34

164 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

The upper management should integrate more, but the Program Leader does R1 not do that. What do you think, he worked 20 years for Impregilo and has one R2 year with Sacyr, he still is an Impregilo guy! (Informal conversation, May 2010) R3 R4 Besides stressing that the initiative of an exchange-event should be at the top of R5 the project organization, Oscar revealed that GUPC’s Program Leader, a Sacyr R6 representative, was affiliated with Impregilo for many years, and he assumed that R7 the ‘Impregilo-blood still runs through his veins’ (Fieldnotes, May 2010). Impregilo R8 employees felt betrayed for the fact that their colleague moved to Sacyr, while R9 Sacyr employees did not trust the Program Leader as a representative of their home R10 organization. The complexity of these backgrounds affected the collaborative R11 relationship among the project partners. Actors marked the boundaries between R12 them and emphasized these in their everyday work. Enforced by these boundaries, R13 subcultures evolved within the project organization and collaboration between the R14 two projects was hardly noticeable. R15 In addition to the subcultural divide between the Atlantic and Pacific project R16 sites, boundaries were also drawn based on the location of the offices, which is next R17 to discuss. R18 R19 Two projects, three locations: Gatún, Cocolí, Corozal Oeste R20 The office for the Atlantic project site was located in Gatún and the commute had R21 an enormous impact on the project participants’ everyday life. From Panama City, R22 where most project participants would travel from, a drive to this office would take R23 about one hour. That is, when there was no traffic. However, in the mornings there R24 were heavy traffic congestions on the route to the office, which troubled the project R25 participants. Oscar, for example, expressed that he did not have time to build a social R26 life. He claimed: R27 R28 I don’t have a life: I rush to work in the morning, work my ass off, and then arrive R29 home late. Eat, sleep, and wake up at 5am again. That’s not a life! (Fieldnotes, R30 May 2010) R31 R32 R33 R34

165 Chapter 5

R1 It was mostly the travel distance that exhausted Oscar, who, for that reason, hoped to be moved to the Pacific office soon. Every morning he had to leave his house before R3 6a.m., so that he would arrive in time on the highway towards the Atlantic Ocean and could avoid the daily traffic jams. His workday started at 7a.m., and he worked R5 until 6p.m. or later, again, to avoid the traffic in the afternoon (Fieldnotes, May 2010). R6 Furthermore, Oscar and his colleagues were disturbed by the discussion about who R7 should pay the toll required to access the fast road: GUPC, the home organization, R8 or the employee himself. Additionally, project participants at the Atlantic project site R9 pointed out that the location of their office in Gatun felt secluded from the rest of R10 the project and its participants. R11 Besides the drawbacks of the office in Gatún, project participants recognized R12 its benefits. For one thing, employees experienced the large distance with the R13 headquarters as an advantage because, from their perspective, involvement from R14 the management team was much smaller when being remote. Besides, the project R15 participants very much enjoyed the office buildings and its surroundings. Former R16 houses from the Canal Zone were remodeled into office buildings, which gave a R17 warm and cozy feeling to the workplace. Almost every office had a kitchenette where R18 employees had access to a coffee machine, a wide variety of tea flavors, a cold-water R19 tap and a fridge to store their snacks and sodas. Outside the office, a green jungle R20 gave a scenic atmosphere to the work environment. Within a five-minute drive and R21 after passing a security fence, one could enter the project execution site. R22 For lunch, project participants walked to a house that is located on the hill and R23 redesigned as a restaurant. Project participants had to sign their name on a paper R24 sheet to announce their presence before enjoying a catered lunch buffet. It struck R25 me that, at lunchtime, project participants did not stay with their departmental R26 colleagues, but they preferred to join a table with employees from their home R27 organization (Fieldnotes, May 2010). Gustavo, an Atlantic Engineer Sacyr, clarified: R28 R29 The companies are still very present in the daily work. At lunch for example, we R30 share a table with people from our own organization, we want to speak our own R31 language. You will find Spanish, Italian, Dutch and Panamanian tables. (Informal R32 conversation, May 2010) R33 R34

166 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

This practice shows that participants were not merged into one group, but rather R1 remained separated in various groups, based on their home organization and native R2 language. The way project participants made use of spatial settings reflects their R3 organizational behavior and preferences; although allocated at various departments, R4 at lunchtime employees from the same home organization gathered together. From R5 my observations, this was different at the Pacific project site. R6 GUPC’s offices in Cocolí, where the Pacific project site was based, were located R7 in two old ACP buildings with the look and feel of being in a container: walls R8 were thin and windows very small. The project site was only footsteps away and R9 the sound of trucks and trailers was clearly heard in the offices. The atmosphere R10 inside the office mostly depended on the weather conditions: rainy days brought a R11 muddy environment and sometimes even floods, while at warm, dry days the offices R12 were dusty. Air conditioners were placed to keep the area cool, but their noise was R13 very loud and the air often too cool. The canteen in the Pacific office housed in a R14 container that was connected to one of the office buildings. A pile of empty water R15 cans and a stack of paper were placed in the corner of the container: the eating area R16 was also used as a storage room, and no daylight could enter. Before enjoying the R17 buffet, one had to sign a paper sheet. Different than in the canteen at the Atlantic R18 project site, only plastic tableware was used. There had been no efforts to create R19 a nice environment is this area; it merely served its purpose. This is exactly what R20 project participants said about the food: “It serves it purpose, it keeps us alive, but R21 it is certainly not tasteful!” (Fieldnotes, April 2010). In contrast to lunch-practices in R22 the Gatún office, I observed here that project participants shared lunch with their R23 departmental colleagues. Often, actors made remarks about lunch at other project R24 locations. Daniela explained: R25 R26 Lunch is much better in Gatún and even in Corozal it’s okay. I don’t know why. R27 R28 Karen: Maybe they have a better caterer? R29 R30 But they don’t. It’s all prepared by Niko’s Café. They should deliver the same R31 quality everywhere… Maybe it’s the way we get it served here. Look [she breaks R32 R33 R34

167 Chapter 5

R1 a plastic fork]. This place is horrible. Gatún is far away, but at least their lunch meals are delicious! (Informal conversation, April 2010) R3 Daniela’s frustration was shared among many other project participants and, if work R5 allowed them, they would drive to a neighboring town (Arraijan) to buy lunch. R6 Some actors admitted staying longer in the Corozal office after a meeting to be R7 able to enjoy lunch at this location. Besides the food quality, project participants felt R8 uncomfortable in Cocolí’s office: the absence of decoration, the lack of daylight and R9 the use of plastic tableware reflected the project’s temporality. None of these features R10 of temporality were seen at the headquarters, while this office in fact was planned R11 for temporal use. R12 At a ten-minute drive away from Panama City, along the Panama Canal, lays the R13 area Corozal Oeste30. This area was previously part of the Canal Zone and houses R14 many ACP buildings, all numbered. Directly after the tender phase the building with R15 number 732 was assigned to GUPC. Earlier in the year the ACP had declined the R16 building as ‘sick’ because it was in such a bad shape that they did not want to R17 use it. GUPC was given the building, but needed to refurbish it extensively before R18 moving in. The roof needed to be fixed, walls were painted and air conditionings R19 were installed (Fieldnotes, October 2009). One needed an ACP identity card to enter R20 GUPC’s headquarters, which all GUPC employees received after the company took R21 office in building 732. While GUPC used the back section, the ACP occupied the R22 first half of the building; a wall and different entrances separated the companies R23 from each other. Various (staff) departments and the WMT were based at GUPC’s R24 headquarters. Due to many movements, either in or out the office building, many R25 people did not know each other and the high work pressure did not allow for R26 time to connect. Hence, I found the atmosphere in the building somewhat distant R27 (Fieldnotes, January 2010). A spacious restaurant was located in the center of the R28 building. With regard to the set-up and procedures, it showed similarities with other R29 GUPC restaurants: one needed to sign before enjoying the catered buffet. Yet, the R30 look and feel of this restaurant was different. The wooden chairs, the silverware and R31 decoration (posters and a bulletin board) gave the restaurant a warm ambiance. R32 30 A few months after the fieldwork period, by late 2010, GUPC moved its headquarters to a newly R33 build office in Cocolí. R34

168 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

Project participants in Corozal Oeste shared lunch with their co-workers, and met in R1 the canteen for (coffee) breaks. R2 From GUPC’s headquarters, the Pacific project site was located about a twenty- R3 minute drive away and it took about an hour drive to the Atlantic project site, R4 resulting in fewer visits to the latter. Hence, the relationship between the main office R5 and the project offices was heavily debated. R6 Project participants experienced a distance in the relationship with its R7 headquarters. In Gatún, employees felt excluded and they often indicated sensing R8 ignorance from the headquarters in Corozal Oeste. With certain anger in his voice, R9 Tom, an Atlantic Engineer, explained: R10 R11 People in Corozal are supposed to support the site offices, but instead they try R12 to impose their way of doing things, their opinions and their procedures on us. R13 I have to chase them down to get something done, they don’t work as a team R14 among each other or with us. They don’t come here and we sure feel that we R15 are satellite. I miss all cooperation with them. But we are the ones that make the R16 money in the end! (Interview, May 2010) R17 R18 Tom did not feel part of the overall organization and was upset about the low level R19 of independency for the project site office. He felt subordinated and claimed more R20 respect from the main office. Tom’s colleague Ruben underscored the connection R21 with GUPC’s headquarters: R22 R23 The relationship with Corozal is awkward and stiff. Personally, I think that Corozal R24 is an unwieldy structure that ‘no matter what’ needs to be, and mostly, wants R25 to be, involved. Yes, we are treated childish sometimes; matters that we should R26 decide upon independently always need to go via them. (Interview, May 2010) R27 R28 Ruben and Tom felt treated pedantically, stuck in rules and regulations by higher R29 management and they sensed a resilient power difference between Gatún and R30 Corozal Oeste. Juxtaposing, later in our conversation Tom admitted enjoying the R31 distance between the headquarters and the project site office. “As soon as I’m back R32 R33 R34

169 Chapter 5

R1 here, they don’t feel the urgency anymore”, he revealed to explain that when he is not around the WMT or staff departments, they do not question him as much R3 (Interview, May 2010). Correspondingly, project participants from the office in Cocolí experienced a R5 distance with GUPC’s headquarters. Simon, a Pacific Engineer Jan de Nul, portrayed: R6 R7 We don’t get involved. We don’t have a clue about what’s going on in Corozal. R8 And they barely know what’s happening here. In fact, I don’t even know what R9 they are doing in the office next door! (Interview, April 2010) R10 R11 Simon illustrated a deficiency in communication with the headquarters in Corozal R12 Oeste, but at the same time highlighted that this is also the matter within his own R13 office. He pointed out that project participants in Cocolí, even though close by R14 Corozal Oeste, suffered from a lack of interest in the project, the person and the R15 work. Actors were mainly focused on their own task instead of paying attention R16 to what happened around them. Another example portraying exclusion was seen R17 around meetings. Almost all meetings took place in the main office, which meant that R18 project participants from Gatún and Cocolí were obliged to travel. Only occasionally, R19 employees from the headquarters visited the project site offices. As such, imposed R20 by the spatial settings, power differences were felt between the project participants. R21 This paragraph illustrated how spatial settings influenced the collaborative R22 relationship among project participants. It showed that project participants identified R23 themselves (and each other) with the project site or office one was based in. They R24 marked these places as boundaries, and, at the same time, applied these as borders R25 between them. They felt distanced from the headquarters, but also separated R26 themselves from another project site, location, or as portrayed in Simon’s quote R27 above, from the departments in the same office. By marking boundaries, project R28 participants tried to simplify the complexity within the project organization. In doing R29 so, however, they created segregation and fragmentation in the relationship between R30 them. The ambiguous link between the project spaces did not improve collaboration R31 but rather created a greater distance between the project participants. Table 5.1 R32 summarizes the spatial settings of GUPC’s project offices. R33 R34

170 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

While trying to create clarity by marking boundaries, project participants searched for R1 an organizational structure offering them a framework of the project organization. In R2 the following paragraph I will elaborate on this practice. R3 R4 Table 5.1 Spatial setting of GUPC project offices R5 Atlantic site Pacific site Headquarter R6 Location Gatun Cocolí Corozal Oeste R7 Driving time to 1 hour 30 minutes 10 minutes Panama City R8 Management Sacyr Impregilo Works Management Team R9 GUPC R10 Office Various renovated Two renovated ACP One refurbished ACP US houses buildings: containers building R11 Departments Divided over In two buildings All departments under one R12 various houses roof Office Cozy, warm Muddy, dusty Distant, warm and humid R13 atmosphere R14 Communal Kitchenette in Coffee corners Coffee corner located in R15 area most houses canteen Canteen In a house on the In a container, no In the centre of the R16 locations hill windows, also a storage building R17 room / plastic tableware R18 Surroundings Beautiful green Project sits, excavation area ACP buildings, close to jungle Panama Canal R19 Distance to the A few minutes Directly outside 30min. drive to Pacific R20 field drive project 1 hour drive to Atlantic R21 project R22 R23 Searching for structure R24 R25 Observations in the project organization showed that project participants missed R26 having a structured overview of GUPC. Such a drawing or document does not only R27 explain where employees are situated, it also shows how the organization and its R28 formal (power) relations are arranged. Earlier in the fieldwork study, in December R29 2009, a project participant called me on my cellular phone: R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

171 Chapter 5

R1 Karen, there is now total chaos in GUPC! It appears that the Ministry of Labor has announced to visit GUPC tomorrow, to check upon valid work permits. [Laughs] R3 We don’t even have a work permit! So, this afternoon every foreigner in the company was informed; tomorrow morning we all have to call our manager R5 before entering the office area, and we should be prepared to leave any minute. R6 Seriously, can it be any more amateurish? What a joke! (Fieldnotes, December R7 2009) R8 R9 The respondent laughed about the unorganized situation for expat employees in R10 the project organization, but he was far from being happy. He had been in Panama R11 since October 2009, but still worked without a valid visa, and the fact that the R12 government announced an inspection, worried him. However, he humorously R13 finished the conversation saying that this event might be a solution to discover R14 GUPC’s organizational structure: R15 R16 Maybe this is a good practice to create an organizational structure: who-calls- R17 who will show hierarchy. We just have to call with Movistar[31] afterwards and we R18 can draw an org. chart! (Fieldnotes, December 2009) R19 R20 Clearly, project participants’ searched for the confirmation of a certain structure. By R21 the same token, in October 2009, presuming it would help me to understand how R22 GUPC was structured, I asked whether an organization chart was available. During my R23 fieldwork period I continued asking for it, but I never received a confirming answer. R24 It appeared that GUPC partners could not come to an agreement about the structure R25 of their organization and the position of certain people in their organization. Yet, the R26 ACP received a chart and had put it up their office walls for clarification, but when R27 I asked GUPC employees about the chart, the answer always rejected the existence R28 of a confirmed organizational structure. Almost a year later, in June 2010, I received R29 a document containing an organization chart that was marked as ‘not approved’. R30 Thus, there was still no consensus about GUPC’s organization structure (Fieldnotes, R31 June 2010). R32 31 A Spanish telephone operator offering its services in Spain and many Latin American countries, R33 such as Panama. R34

172 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

The absence of a certain organizational structure portrayed disarray at the higher R1 management level, which was reflected on the work floor. Project participants R2 frequently illustrated that any form of trust within the project organization was out of R3 the question. The motivation to work together was low and project participants felt R4 that a collaborative relationship was missing. Consequently, numerous employees R5 stated that GUPC’s project organization affected their emotional well-being. Jaap, a R6 Pacific Engineer Jan de Nul, for example, had a worried expression on his face when R7 I encountered him in the corridor of GUPC’s headquarters. I asked him what is going R8 on and, with a deep sigh, he replied: R9 R10 It’s a continuous headache, this project is the most difficult one I’ve ever worked R11 on. It’s not just one thing that’s going wrong, it’s everything! (Fieldnotes, March R12 2010) R13 R14 While we spoke, an employee came storming into the hallway, screaming: “If this R15 does not change before the end of the month, I’m out!” (Fieldnotes, March 2010). R16 Jaap sighed and continued his route. Later that week, Sergio too, admitted: R17 R18 Last week was an emotional drain. Going to bed at 2am every night, getting up R19 early, coming home late and usually not in a good mood, that is not what I want. R20 I have a wife and two children that I want to take care of. (Informal conversation, R21 March 2010) R22 R23 Employees who arrived in Panama at the start of the execution phase expressed R24 feelings of discomfort when I spoke to them in December 2009. At the time, they R25 predicted this was part of the beginning of the execution phase and expected better R26 structures to be implemented soon. However, when I spoke with them again in June R27 2010, the employees had sensed no development with regard to the collaborative R28 relationship. Simon confirmed: R29 R30 I sleep bad, I worry all the time. At first I thought it would be over soon, and I had R31 hopes that issues would stay on the management level, but they don’t. We need R32 R33 R34

173 Chapter 5

R1 over a year to find our way of working together, and that is far too long for this project. (Informal conversation, June 2010) R3 The tense atmosphere within the project organization, as portrayed above, was R5 fed by activities, such as, for example, an installation of Adobe Professional on all R6 computers. This program supports employees to convert their documents in .pdf files. R7 In the laborious collaboration among project participants, this action was understood R8 as a display of distrust, as Simon verified: R9 R10 That’s when you know things are going in the wrong direction, when your R11 colleagues send information in pdf. Because with that they show there is more R12 info, but you cannot access that. Why would we hide information from each R13 other? We should operate as a team. Well, we don’t! Instead, we give everyone R14 a license to make pdf-files so that information can be kept secret to others. It’s R15 crazy!! (Informal conversation, June 2010) R16 R17 In a different work environment, one in which collaboration is perceived positively, R18 project participants might view the installation of such a program as a handy tool R19 to send documents to the client as it prevents drawings from being changed in R20 the process of sending. However, with regard GUPC, this comment underscored a R21 practice that hampered collaboration. R22 The continuous conflicts at the higher management level and the fact that no R23 consensus could be reached on the organization chart, among other issues, portrayed R24 an unstructured project organization. It may be obvious that the emotional distress R25 for the project participants’ daily life did not benefit to a satisfactory collaborative R26 relationship. As an answer to spatial divides and the absence of a clear organizational R27 framework, project participants held on to common behavior and traditional practices, R28 illustrated by marking boundaries and searching for structure. The marked boundaries R29 were enacted and created a greater distance between the project participants, and R30 the lack of an organization structure amplified the complexity and uncertainty of the R31 project organization. R32 R33 R34

174 Practices within the GUPC project organization: Diminishing Collaboration

Discussion: Diminishers of Collaboration R1 R2 In this first empirical chapter I focused on collaboration within the project organization R3 Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC). By means of describing practices of collaboration R4 I explained how project participants made sense of and dealt with the cultural R5 complexity they encountered in their everyday work life. Although an abundance of R6 practices was observed in the project organization, the ones presented in this chapter R7 demonstrate how project participants searched for something to hold on to and R8 what they did to find comfort in their daily work environment. R9 Due to an unstable start, the collaboration between Sacyr, Impregilo, Jan de R10 Nul and CUSA was colored by high pressure and simmering tensions. Through the R11 use of metaphors and labeling cultures project participants translated their thoughts R12 and experiences into more amendable forms of understanding. Marking the spatial R13 boundaries and searching for structure supported them to give meaning to the R14 project environment. At first sight, these practices might seem to have supported R15 the project participants in unraveling the dense nature of their organization and its R16 context, but when taking a closer look, it turned out that these practices reflected R17 how a collaborative relationship was hindered. The outcomes of the practices led to R18 differentiation, segregation and fragmentation among the project participants and R19 created a ‘canal’ between them. That is to say, the actors’ strong focus on differences R20 and boundaries magnified the emotional distance between them. Hence, these R21 practices enacted as diminishers of collaboration. R22 The diminishers of collaboration reflect the project participants’ search for R23 security and confidence in their ambiguous and uncertain work environment. By R24 nature, collaborations are rarely static structures and often, due to the difficulty of R25 understanding and negotiating around the different, conflicting, overt and hidden R26 agendas, clarity is not achieved (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). As a result, actors R27 hold on to deeply embedded practices, and actively deploy and construct cultural R28 differences to defend and oppose established practices and power relations (Ybema R29 & Byun, 2009). Offering useful means of interpretation and sense making, these R30 established project management practices have an important bearing on the shaping R31 and development of collaboration (Bresnen, Goussevskaia, & Swan, 2005b), because R32 R33 R34

175 Chapter 5

R1 such traditions guide and constrain the potential for change (Hibbert & Huxham, 2010). The term collaborative inertia, put forward by Huxam and Vangen (e.g. R3 Huxham, 1996; Huxham & Vangen, 2004), describes the pitfalls of collaboration. The authors emphasize that, amongst others, difficulties in negotiating a joint R5 purpose, difficulties in communicating across (national, cultural, professional and R6 organizational) languages and difficulties in developing joint modes of operating, as R7 we have seen in the GUPC project organization, result in static behavior and fixed R8 practices. In the following chapter, however, I will portray that project participants R9 were motivated for creating a collaborative relationship amongst them and illustrate R10 how they shaped and initiated practices of collaboration. R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

176 Chapter 6

Collaboration within GUPC:

Amplifying Practices Chapter 6

R1 Introduction

R3 Following the previous chapter, in which I portrayed how the GUPC project participants made sense of the cultural complexity in their everyday work environment, I will R5 demonstrate in this chapter32 the practices that project participants enacted, shaped R6 or initiated when creating a collaborative relationship amongst them. More explicitly, R7 in this chapter I will elaborate on the practices that manifested collaboration among R8 the GUPC project participants. Affected by a high work pressure related to the price R9 proposal and the social-cultural difficulties, as explained earlier, project participants R10 recognized that combining their knowledge, shaping their practices and adjusting R11 to the other parties generated the progress in the Third Set of Locks Project. This R12 reflective process induced project participants to alter their everyday work practices R13 and behavior. Illustrating these evolving practices of collaboration allows me to R14 discover oblivious perceptions of the organization and provides us with insight into R15 the internal dynamics within GUPC. R16 The chapter unfolds as follows. In the first paragraph I will elaborate on the R17 shared interests supporting the project participants in finding common ground. In R18 the second paragraph I will discuss bridging actors who acted as intermediaries and R19 brought the project participants closer together. As the project took shape, I observed R20 cross-cultural code-switching on the work floor. Focusing on the adaptation of R21 language, shaping work practices and initiating new practices, in the third paragraph, R22 I will describe how project participants make sense of the collaborative relationship R23 amongst them. As part of this sense making process, project participants initiated R24 social activities, of which I will illustrate several examples in the forth paragraph. The R25 last paragraph captures these practices into amplifiers of collaboration. R26 R27 Sharing interests R28 R29 In the rapidly moving project organization of GUPC, actors built on prior, mutual R30 and collective knowledge to make sense of their work environment. Idiosyncratic to R31 the level of the collaborative undertaking, both congruence and diversity in interests R32 32 I have presented parts of this chapter at the 6th Making Projects Critical Workshop, 16-17 April R33 2012 in Manchester and at the 28th EGOS Colloquium, 5-7 July 2012 in Helsinki. R34

178 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

and goals influence the collaborative relationship (Vangen & Huxam, 2011). When R1 seeking for common ground, project participants rely, amongst other aspects, on R2 their shared interests. At the principal level, project partners share an interest about R3 what they aspire to achieve together, such as the completion of the Third Set of R4 Locks project. At the organizational level, however, interest for collaboration often R5 reflects existing agendas that need to be addressed, while individuals are likely to be R6 assigned to a role in the project for the need of their organization (Vangen & Huxam, R7 2011). At this level, the GUPC partners dealt with resource constraints, viewed R8 policy implementations differently and had differing interests for the collaboration R9 (see Interlude). Furthermore, at the micro level, the GUPC members explored R10 mutual experiences and collective knowledge supporting them in the sense making R11 process. Correspondingly, sharing interests and following a mantra were the bases R12 for generating a more collaborative relationship in the execution of the Third Set of R13 Locks project. R14 R15 Passion for profession R16 A mutual passion for their profession was found in the project participants’ R17 backgrounds. Some respondents had a degree in technical engineering and others R18 had studied electrical or industrial engineering, but they were all educated for R19 and had experience in the construction sector. This shared field of interest came R20 directly to the fore when actors discussed their previous work experiences with each R21 other. Project participants showed pride in the projects they had completed: several R22 employees worked on the Palm Islands in Dubai, other participants were involved in R23 the construction of hydroelectric plants in Brazil, and some were employed for the R24 construction of the national railway network in Venezuela. Actors enjoyed speaking R25 about the preceding undertakings in their career. One respondent, for example, R26 pointed out his personal website where he keeps track of the previous projects R27 he worked on, and informs readers about the backgrounds of these engineering R28 works. On the website he published that his “passion in life is visiting the world of R29 construction sites, as there is so much to learn from new technologies” (May 2010). R30 Another case in point is Luis, a Pacific Manager Sacyr, who proudly showed me a R31 picture book of a project he worked for in Spain, and presented me a magazine R32 R33 R34

179 Chapter 6

R1 that published an article he wrote about social responsibility in engineering projects (Interview, May 2010). These examples demonstrate that, besides being passionate R3 about their job internally, project participants also publically portrayed their passion for the profession of engineers. According to Humberto, an Environmental Specialist R5 for GUPC, this passion is universal. He depicted: R6 R7 We have a lot of problems here and sit down as a team, because they are R8 environmentalists, we are environmentalists; let’s fix it. […] People who are R9 working in the environmental area are some sort of environmental warriors. R10 (Interview, May 2010) R11 R12 In addition to a shared educational background, Humberto felt emotionally connected R13 to other environmental engineers as similar objectives to fight for the environment R14 were shared. R15 In the everyday work place, the shared professional interest emerged in a mutual R16 language among project participants: an engineering language. In many meetings R17 I observed project participants understanding each other better when drawings R18 were made. Also in interviews, numerous participants asked for a piece of paper R19 for answering my question and explaining themselves better with an illustration. By R20 means of clarification, actors frequently felt the urge to illustrate their story with a R21 drawing. The sketches could be as simple as a pyramid or as complicated as a design R22 structure; they supported project participants in making themselves clear. As such, R23 the use of drawings to express and understand each other was a manner of speech R24 shared by project participants. R25 Another aspect of the passion for profession is the expatriate life. On a yearly R26 basis, only few, large engineering projects commence, and they are often located in R27 remote areas in the world. As a result for their passion for working in engineering R28 mega projects, and simply because this is their job, most project participants know the R29 expatriate life. They move from project to project, which usually entails moving from R30 country to country, depending on where their home organization acquired a new R31 project. The shared knowledge of the expatriate life proved to be a connecting factor R32 for employees in GUPC’s project organization; they invited each other for dinner R33 parties and together they explored their new base, the country of Panama. Also, the R34

180 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

partners and families of project participants frequently exchanged experiences and R1 built friendships. The expat community was small: people often knew each other R2 from previous projects and understood what it was like to leave their roots, family and R3 friends behind. As such, they were building a new social life with each other. Hence, R4 the shared passion for profession reached further than the common educational R5 background or mutual language, it was also related to the project participants’ life R6 styles. R7 R8 Following the Mantra ‘the work needs to be done’ R9 Originating from Hinduism and Buddhism, a mantra expresses an invocation or R10 mystical formula, but a mantra also signifies a repeated word or phrase, such as R11 a motto or a slogan (Merriam Webster Dictionary). The mantra ‘the work needs R12 to be done’ was often heard within GUPC. Representing their work attitude and R13 mindset, this mantra expressed a basic drive to finalize the project. It indicated the R14 actors’ pragmatic approach and displayed an attitude of putting one’s shoulders R15 to the wheel. In some occasions, the mantra was applied to cover up the cultural R16 differences in the project organization. Celso, a Technical Engineer Impregilo, for R17 example, believed: R18 R19 Of course the Spanish are different from the Italians and the Belgians, but what R20 I think makes everything come together is the, what we do, is a common goal. R21 We are really concentrated on this; we have to finalize this project. (Interview, R22 May 2010) R23 R24 In contrary to defining or enlarging the cultural differences, as described in the R25 preceding chapter, Celso preferred a focus on the shared interest between project R26 participants. In the execution of the project, this mantra was echoed in numerous R27 interviews and strongly enacted in the work attitude of project participants. Pablo, R28 the Pacific Engineer Impregilo, declared: R29 R30 I speak very clear with all my guys and just say we are here to work together. R31 We are trying to work in the same direction because the work needs to be done. R32 (Interview, March 2010) R33 R34

181 Chapter 6

R1 In his role as a manager of the Technical Department Pablo articulated that collaboration is important in the execution of the project. Moreover, he applied the R3 mantra to clarify the common goal among the project participants and pleaded to seize the work with both hands. The mantra was central to the project participants’ R5 work routine and reflected in their everyday practices; GUPC employees had a six- R6 day workweek and worked ten hours a day. Many respondents emphasized that R7 their work also was their hobby, and it had to be, as not much leisure time was left R8 for other activities (Fieldnotes, May 2010). Consequently, an emotional connection R9 to the idea that ‘the work needs to be done’ evolved, resulting in tense discussions, R10 powerful debates and, in some instances, even a rough scuffle between project R11 participants broke out. The Pacific Project Manager saw benefits in conflicts at the R12 work floor. He stated: R13 R14 I like it when people are fighting. That means things are happening, that they R15 feel attached to the project, and that is very important. If they put their pen on R16 the table at six o’clock everyday than this is not going to work. They have to be R17 in it 24/7. (Interview, February 2010) R18 R19 Relating conflicts at the work floor to the emotional involvement of project R20 participants, the Pacific Project Manager suggested that a struggle amongst project R21 participants signified their connection to the project. He furthermore explained that R22 this dedication is needed for collaborating and finalizing the project. R23 Completing this paragraph on shared interests, it is interesting to note that R24 the mantra is a reflection of the overall aspirations for the project organization. As R25 was contractually agreed for the collaborative effort of GUPC, the project partners R26 desired constructing the Third Set of Locks project together. Although less visible at R27 the organizational level of the project organization, where project partners found R28 themselves in continuous conflicts, the mantra reoccurred at the micro level of the R29 organization. A critical note here is needed, since the meaning behind the mantra as R30 it was envisioned at the principle level, might differ from how project participants at R31 the lower level gave meaning to the notion. With regard to the acrimonious situation R32 within the GUPC project organization, the motivation for ‘the work needs to be done’- R33 R34

182 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

mantra might signify ‘let’s get it over with’, symbolizing the completion of something R1 unpleasant or difficult. Following this line of thought, the GUPC employees often R2 embraced a rationale of the project as ‘merely’ a temporary engagement. Time and R3 again, in a variety of wordings, they reiterated that the project was “just another R4 project”, not any different from any other projects they previously participated in. R5 Consequently, they needed to approach the project as any other project in their R6 careers; that is, by rolling up their sleeves and finalizing the project together, so they R7 could move to the next one. R8 R9 Bridging Actors R10 R11 Several months into the execution of the project, bridging actors emerged in the R12 process of collaboration. These actors, who were not related to any of the partnering R13 organizations and had no preceding connection to the organizations, evolved as R14 middlemen. Hired for their skills and experiences in, particularly American mega R15 projects, these employees appeared to be a viable source for bridging the gap R16 between project participants. The word ‘middleman’ is first used in 1677 and refers R17 to ‘an intermediary or agent between two parties’ (Merriam Webster Dictionary). R18 This is not a term used in the organization, but one that I connected to the role these R19 persons had in the collaborative process among GUPC project participants. R20 Although mostly used in economic studies, the concept of middleman is also R21 translated to several organization studies. Van Marrewijk (2001), for example, R22 illustrates that middlemen are deployed to overcome cross-cultural differences R23 between Dutch and Indonesian employees in the telecom sector. Middlemen in Van R24 Marrewijk’s work, however, are explicitly hired for their role as an intermediary or R25 for their network in the country that was new for expatriates, while middlemen R26 within GUPC were not intentionally hired for such a position; they were hired for R27 their knowledge and experience and, in the process of collaboration, developed the R28 middleman-role. R29 Middlemen played a vital role in GUPC’s project organization. In a number of R30 ways, middlemen were advantageous for the collaborative process in the project R31 organization. First, the middlemen acted as translators of language and interpreters R32 R33 R34

183 Chapter 6

R1 of the contract. Second, the middlemen transferred their knowledge and experience to employees in the project organization. Third, due to their impartial position, R3 middlemen were not easily distracted by organizational politics. Hence, middlemen focused on reaching the project’s targets, were capable of acting in both directions, R5 and provided unbiased information and advice for the execution of the project. R6 Within GUPC, I detected three middlemen. Their roles are established in the (self-) R7 appointed characters of a saint, a fire fighter and a mediator. These characters R8 embody the roles of bridging actors, which are discussed in this paragraph. R9 R10 Saint Judas Thaddeus R11 The first middleman to discuss is Lee. Lee was born in the United States and, before R12 moving to Panama several years ago he worked for over twenty years in numerous R13 construction projects. In February 2010 he joined GUPC to support the organization R14 with the submittal process. This is an administrative process, providing a critical check- R15 and-balance during the execution phase. Data, drawings and project documents R16 about the quantity and quality of materials and products needed for the construction R17 process were gathered so that the ACP could review its details. This quality control R18 mechanism is used to ensure that the project outcome conforms to the initial design R19 and construction plans, and meets ACP’s expectations. Difficulties in this process are R20 found in the level of detail and completeness of the information, which makes it a R21 daunting and time consuming task. Lee was hired because he had experience with R22 the American project management standards that ACP applied in the contract for the R23 Third Set of Locks project. He explained: R24 R25 Having worked with the U.S. government for 25 years, I know what these R26 guys [ACP] are looking for. I know what their hot buttons are and what their R27 frustrations are. […] I know them better than they know themselves. And so a R28 lot of the times I have to say [to GUPC], “Pull back of out it. Don’t do what you R29 are planning on doing” and other times I say, “Yeah, go, go, go”. (Interview, R30 April 2010) R31 R32 R33 R34

184 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

Lee confidently described that he supported GUPC with his knowledge and R1 experiences with the submittal process. However, his role in the project organization R2 became much broader. Besides guiding GUPC through the administrative process, he R3 became occupied with a wide variety of other tasks resulting in the lack of a job-title. R4 Lee revealed: R5 R6 Sometimes they call me the change manager, but it’s funny because they’ve tried R7 to give me titles and none of it sticks because I do everything. I mean… every R8 path in this company crosses my desk, both vertically and horizontally. Do you R9 know who Saint Jude Thaddeus is? R10 R11 Karen: No. R12 R13 He is the saint of the last resort and they call him San Judas Tadeo in Panama… R14 I’m here to help them. (Interview, April 2010) R15 R16 Lee used the character of Saint Jude Thaddeus to make sense of his role in the project R17 organization. Often referred to as Saint Jude, this saint was one of the twelve apostles R18 of Jesus Christ. In the Roman Catholic Church, Saint Jude Thaddeus is known as the R19 patron saint to petition for hopeless causes33. Catholics seek for the saint’s powerful R20 intercession and call upon him for hope and confidence. Desperate situations such R21 as family affairs, business failures and personal difficulties are stories to share with R22 Saint Jude. Thaddeus, or Tadeo in Spanish, signifies to a generous and fearless man; R23 in ancient times the name corresponded to the way of being a person34. The saint is a R24 popular image in Panama; in the capital city of this Roman Catholic country a hospital R25 is named San Jude Tadeo. R26 Due to his presence, stated Lee, processes ran smoother and collaboration R27 between the project participants strengthened (Interview, April 2010). In this vein, R28 Lee organized workshops about the submittal process for the GUPC employees. He R29 verified: R30 R31

33 See: http://www.judes.org/pages/history.html R32 34 See: http://parroquiasanjudastadeo.com/quiensanju.html R33 R34

185 Chapter 6

R1 Our submittal program has gone from what was just an absolute disaster to something that is pretty good now, and it’s getting better every week, every R3 month. I’ve held some workshops internally. We got all department heads and said: “Here’s the problems we’re having. We need to take a look at this R5 because this is what is creating problems in each of our submittals.” And then R6 further down the organization, with the submittal writers, which basically are R7 the technical guys out in the field: “Okay, here is what you need to work on.” R8 (Interview, April 2010) R9 R10 Lee demonstrated that the workshop, held at various organizational levels, enhanced R11 the work practices within GUPC. Furthermore, the workshops bridged the gap R12 between project participants allowing them to discuss their struggles and feelings R13 towards the tedious administrative process, and working towards a solution together. R14 Improving the daily work practices, as such, Lee showed that he is a ‘helper’ in the R15 organization. Another character for the role of middleman is that of a fire fighter, the R16 next one to discuss. R17 R18 Fire Fighter R19 Similar to Lee, Robin had many years of experience in the American principles for R20 project management before he started working in Panamanian construction projects. R21 And, he had no affiliation with any of the partners in the Panama Canal Expansion R22 Program. Both Robin and Lee were hired for their knowledge and experience with R23 the common practices of project management in the United States (Fieldnotes, R24 March 2010). Robin noted: R25 R26 In the States everybody is quite used to these requirements, and here [in Panama] R27 the contract is geared towards the American system. So that has caused struggles R28 and that is one reason why I was asked to come in. (Interview, June 2010) R29 R30 Robin justified his presence in the project organization with his expertise on American R31 project management, standards that the GUPC employees did not master. His initial R32 task was to produce a formal document displaying the major milestones, activities R33 R34

186 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

and resources required for the project. Such a plan is used to guide the execution R1 and control of the project as it portrays the planning assumptions, it facilitates R2 communication among stakeholders and it states baselines for the scope, costs and R3 schedule of the project. Furthermore, Robin was employed because he is a native R4 English speaker, which is the project’s official language (Interview Sergio, March R5 2010). However, apart from the specific task he was hired for, Robin was deployed to R6 bring structure to the project organization’s work processes (Fieldnotes, June 2010). R7 He underscored his role within GUPC: R8 R9 It’s claims or writing letters, or solving problems. So that is my role. I guess in R10 brackets you could put bombero (fire fighter) because I tend to have other R11 responsibilities, other than what I’m hired for. […] Besides that, I solve any other R12 problems that the Program Leader asks me to solve. I chair the weekly staff R13 meeting and when I have the opportunity I attend the weekly site meetings at the R14 Atlantic and Pacific. […] I use my skills and knowledge to better the processes. R15 (Interview, June 2010) R16 R17 Emphasizing his role within the project organization, Robin referred to a fire fighter R18 and illustrated problems as fires needing to be extinguished. In weekly staff meetings R19 at the headquarters, for example, Robin took over lead from the Program Leader. R20 Many project participants, both from the ACP and GUPC, experienced the Program R21 Leader’s role as a chairman for meetings as problematic: a fire that Robin fought R22 by taking over this role. In many other occasions, Lee did the same for the Project R23 Manager at the Pacific project site (Fieldnotes, June 2010). Their problem solving- R24 role was highly appreciated in the project organization. Ben, an Impregilo engineer, R25 emphasized the need for middlemen within GUPC. He suggested that: R26 R27 We have too many different mindsets inside the project organization. Now, with R28 Robin and his experience, he will put it together. (Interview, June 2010) R29 R30 Ben highlighted that Robin’s assistance consolidated the differing cultural profiles R31 and interests that project partners have brought to the organization. Accordingly, the R32 R33 R34

187 Chapter 6

R1 presence of middlemen is of vital importance in the process of collaboration between project partners. Particularly after the complicated start-up that GUPC partners R3 experienced in the transition from tender phase to execution phase, middlemen positively contributed to the project organization by bridging knowledge, experience R5 and cultural gaps. In other situations, a middleman acted in a more negotiator role, R6 illustrated in the character of mediator. R7 R8 Mediator R9 Bart, affiliated with Jan de Nul, often fulfilled the role of a middleman in the GUPC R10 project organization. Although, for his affiliation with one of the project partners, he R11 was not an impartial actor, he was perceived, and presented himself, as a negotiator, R12 an arbitrator sometimes, but mostly, as a mediator. In many occasions Bart intervened R13 conciliatorily between project participants. He aptly exemplified: R14 R15 This morning after a meeting in which two people clearly had issues with each R16 other, I asked one of them to come and see me. I said: “Please act wise, you R17 have much more experience, and you’re knowledgeable. He (the other person) R18 has good sides. Try to act normal: give and take”. So, my goal is to enhance the R19 internal relations. (Interview, June 2010) R20 R21 Later that day, in an attempt to settle the issue, Bart organized a meeting with the R22 two persons. He clarified: R23 R24 These two just can’t stand each other. But to avoid further divide and rule I R25 had to talk into them. Afterwards, I gave Celso advice on how he can bring R26 his girlfriend to Panama. It’s a strategy, you know, I’m like the ‘masseur’ in this R27 organization. (Interview, June 2010). R28 R29 In this example Bart required Celso to adapt and, motivating him to do so, he R30 strategically gave Celso advice on another topic. Presenting himself as a middleman, R31 characterized in the role of a masseur, Bart molded relationships between his R32 colleagues. He was dedicated to negotiate towards agreements or compelled to R33 R34

188 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

make a decision, because he was aware that conflicts cost time and hinder the R1 collaboration (Informal conversation, June 2010). As such, for many actors, Bart R2 bridged the gap between them. R3 At the Pacific project site, the Foreman also developed into a bridging actor. For R4 the past ten years, Santos had worked in many local construction projects as a Lead R5 Foreman. He is a Panamanian employee who, without connections to any of the R6 project partners, was hired as a foreman for the Pacific project site. Mainly operators R7 at this site recognized Santos as the person to go to when problems occurred R8 (Fieldnotes, May 2010). According to Santos, the job site needs to be a peaceful R9 place so that everyone can collaborate (Interview Santos, May 2010). He underscored R10 the importance of a middleman and described how he enacted this role in the field: R11 R12 The guys were used to working with a Belgian superintendent, but his Spanish is R13 not very good. He spoke English and Rodolfo translated, but sometimes he did R14 not use the same words as the Belgian did, so that became a problem. When R15 I came here, Rodolfo complemented me, because he saw that I have better R16 communication skills. R17 R18 Karen: Many of the problems and trouble dissolved when you came on board? R19 R20 Yes, I have been a good solution for the company. And also for the guys, because R21 right [now] things are running, not as smooth as they should be, but it is running R22 better than before. So I think I have been a good solution for them. (Interview, R23 May 2010) R24 R25 Equally to Bart, Santos shaped the relationship between the project participants. R26 Supporting others to settle conflicts and ensuring that the interaction among operators R27 remained comprehensible, he contributed to a collaborative work environment. R28 Following three characters from the field, these paragraphs have shown the R29 various roles that the bridging actors enacted in the daily project setting. A helper, R30 a teacher and a leader were embodied in the character of Saint Judas Thaddeus, R31 while the firefighter represented a problem solver, consolidator and someone who R32 R33 R34

189 Chapter 6

R1 structured work processes. Moreover, the character of a mediator symbolized the roles of a negotiator, a translator and a connector of organizational members. R3 Altogether, these roles informally emerged in the project organization. They were not formally assigned to the actors, but rather evolved in the process of collaboration R5 among project participants. R6 What is more, as they possess a certain set of traits, these roles appealed to R7 the middlemen. An outspoken personality, experience in (American) project R8 management, convincing and emphatic capacities and the goodwill to collaborate R9 were valued qualities of the middlemen. Mainly because these bridging actors were R10 less embedded in the project organization, they were able to act more freely and R11 more flexibly. Furthermore, it often takes a fresh pair of eyes to put things into proper R12 perspective. By means of transferring knowledge and experiences and by molding R13 internal relationships, middlemen supported project participants in their everyday R14 practices. Trying to enhance and share practices, and resolving issues among project R15 participants, the bridging actors were manifestations of collaboration in the GUPC R16 project organization. Table 6.1 gives an overview of the characters, their roles and R17 goal in the project organization. R18 R19 Table 6.1 Bridging actors R20 Character Roles Goal R21 Saint Judas Thaddeus Helper Transferring knowledge Teacher R22 Leader R23 Fire fighter Problem solver Sharing experiences Consolidator R24 Structure work process R25 Mediator Negotiator Enhancing relationships R26 Translator Connecting project members R27 R28 Cross-cultural code-switching R29 R30 The previous paragraph highlighted the role and importance of middlemen in a R31 project organization. Bridging actors played a vital role within GUPC, even when R32 these roles where not previously or intentionally appointed. In this paragraph I will R33 R34

190 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

focus on adaptation occurring in the single interactions between actors. Adaption R1 entails the practice of shaping or adjusting behavior and routines to the new work R2 conditions. This is what Molinsky introduced as ‘cross-cultural code-switching’, which R3 he defined as: “the act of purposefully modifying one’s behavior and interaction in R4 a foreign setting in order to accommodate different cultural norms for appropriate R5 behavior” (Molinsky, 2007:624). Intentionally, actors adapt their behavior with the R6 purpose of gaining a better social impression. Cross-cultural code-switching supports R7 actors avoiding the negative consequences of norm violations and generating R8 positive outcomes such as fitting in, being well-liked, and winning respect, trust, R9 and friendships from colleagues, clients, and subordinates (Molinsky, 2007). While R10 making sense of their work environment, actors learn the rules for appropriate R11 behavior in their new setting. Shaping their behavior and adjusting their routine R12 practices stimulates a positive spiral within the process of collaboration among project R13 participants. In GUPC’s project organization, I detected linguistic and behavioral R14 code-switching. R15 R16 Linguistic code-switching R17 Linguistic code-switching, according to Molinsky (2007), entails bilingual speakers R18 altering between languages when interacting with other bilinguals. In this study, R19 however, I interpret linguistic code-switching as the adaptation to language among R20 all actors. That is to say, I do not focus on the interaction between bilinguals; I focus R21 on the interactions between individuals who are, not necessarily, or, in fact, most R22 likely, not bilingual. Hence, in this study, linguistic code-switching entails the practice R23 of, intentionally, adjusting language skills. R24 Within the GUPC project organization, a wide variety of languages came R25 together. Among other languages, native speakers in Spanish, English and Italian R26 prevailed. Yet, as the contract for the Third Set of Locks project was written in English, R27 the ACP had decided that this was the official project language. At the beginning R28 of the execution phase, when project participants arrived to Panama, the language R29 differences caused enormous difficulties in the process of collaboration (Fieldnotes, R30 November 2009). Overall, Impregilo employees have sufficient knowledge of English R31 and they understand Spanish, and most CUSA employees comprehend English, R32 R33 R34

191 Chapter 6

R1 while their native language is Spanish. However, as it appeared that Sacyr project participants barely spoke English, and Jan de Nul employees were not familiar with R3 the Spanish language, daily struggles were related to language issues. At the start of the execution phase the project partners had decided that Sacyr would control R5 the Atlantic project site. As a result, the project site was mostly occupied with Sacyr R6 employees, who often were not skilled in English. One can imagine this caused R7 conflict in the everyday collaboration with other project participants. Over time, R8 however, project participants adapted words and phrases from the foreign language R9 and adjusted to each other. Ruben, a native Dutch speaker, explained: R10 R11 Back then I did not speak Spanish, and I still don’t, but I understand much more. R12 His (points at a Sacyr employee) English was of such a low level that we could R13 hardly communicate, and this was very difficult in the first two months. Now, his R14 English has improved, so he can express himself a little better. When he cannot R15 say it in English, he can say it in Spanish and generally I understand that. So we R16 have no language issue anymore, but it was there in the beginning. (Interview, R17 May 2010) R18 R19 Ruben verified that at the start of the execution phase language differences created R20 complications in the collaboration between him and his native Spanish-speaking R21 supervisor. Yet, he highlighted that they adjusted to each other’s language, and the R22 communication between the project participants advanced. R23 Ruben’s colleague Chris confirmed that language differences created R24 complications, but he emphasized that serious attempts to enhance the language R25 skills proved to be fruitful. He underscored: R26 R27 In the beginning Gustavo did not speak any English, and my Spanish sucks, but R28 we both try and have built a good relationship. I like him; he’s an easygoing guy. R29 (Informal conversation, May 2010) R30 R31 In the daily practices, both Chris and Gustavo adapted their languages skills by R32 putting energy into learning a new language: Gustavo improved his English and Chris R33 R34

192 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

slowly understood more of the Spanish. Subsequently, Gustavo affirmed: “knowing R1 that both try to understand each other helped in the relationship” (Fieldnotes, May R2 2010). Furthermore, some Spanish-speaking project participants started to take R3 English lessons and GUPC offered a Spanish language course. Listening to a tape in R4 their car, while driving to work, various employees acquired new Spanish words and R5 phrases (Fieldnotes, May 2010). Hence, project participants made an effort adapting R6 to the foreign language and appreciated it when the other party equally tried to R7 adapt. Over time, language became less of an issue in the process of collaboration. R8 When project participants did not sufficiently speak the required language, R9 English, a translator was hired. Mostly occupied at the Atlantic project site, the R10 translator supported native-Spanish speakers understanding the project documents R11 and communicating in meetings. Ruben clarified: R12 R13 Language really is a problem for some Sacyr employees because every document R14 they see needs to be translated. One person, hired by Grupo, only fulfills tasks for R15 those few that do not speak English. He translates in both directions. So when R16 something from the client arrives it needs to be translated to Spanish and when R17 they have to send a reply that needs to be translated to English. (Interview, May R18 2010) R19 R20 The interpreter worked side-by-side with some Sacyr employees, supporting them R21 with the use of English in their daily work. In meetings with ACP, I observed that a R22 translator was seated next to a Sacyr employee, translating what was being said in the R23 project meeting (Fieldnotes, May 2010). In addition, project participants requested R24 language support from their colleagues. Ensuring they fully understood a document, R25 or could communicate in jargon with their co-workers, a colleague was often asked R26 for help. Tom, an Atlantic Engineer, described: R27 R28 At our department we are doing pretty well. The only issue that I have with R29 language is with the draughts men. I have to ask my colleague to help me R30 explaining to them what I need. The technical draughts men speak very little R31 English and I cannot explain what I need in Spanish, so with sign language, and R32 with the help of my colleague, we manage. (Interview, May 2010) R33 R34

193 Chapter 6

R1 Tom pointed out that he had approached a colleague for the communication with the Spanish-speaking draughts men, because the technical terminology in Spanish R3 was beyond his language level. Thus, besides learning the new language or hiring a translator, also by means of finding support from other colleagues the GUPC R5 project participants succeeded in bridging the language gap in their everyday work R6 environment. Enacting linguistic code-switching, actors aimed at enhancing interaction R7 and collaboration with their colleagues, superiors or subordinates. Consequently, the R8 language barrier on the work floor dissolved and language differences became less of R9 an obstacle in the collaborative relationship among project participants. R10 R11 Behavioral code-switching R12 In line with linguistic code-switching, behavioral code-switching entails the actors’ R13 behavioral adaptation, which includes shaping the work attitude and modifying or R14 initiating work practices. Within GUPC, actors each brought their idiosyncratic ways R15 of operation to the project organization that, as a result of their distinguished natures, R16 could hinder the process of collaboration. Reflecting-in-action (see Yanow & Tsoukas, R17 2009), project participants became aware of their culturally ingrained behavior and R18 were guided to adapt their behavior to the current project setting. R19 The Atlantic Field Manager Jan de Nul, for example, experienced that his work R20 attitude was uncommon for the local employees he supervised. His home organization R21 expected employees to fill in a database with detailed information on how the R22 work was executed, but his subordinates were deterred; they had never analyzed R23 their work in such a precise manner (Interview, May 2010). Frank, the Atlantic Field R24 Manager, reflected: R25 R26 When we realized they did not want to change, we said: ‘okay’. Then we took a R27 step back. (Interview, May 2010) R28 R29 Experiencing that his way of working clashed with the common practices of local R30 employees about how to provide data, made Frank realize the necessity of adapting R31 his work attitude. “I deliberately place myself at the background,” admitted Frank R32 (Interview, May 2010). This way, Frank tried to give space to others and avoided being R33 R34

194 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

the ruling person in the group. When I asked him whether he had to restrain himself, R1 Frank confirmed and added: “But I am a guest in their country.” (Interview, May R2 2010). By reflecting on the situation, becoming aware of his position and concluding R3 that taking a step aside supported the daily practices, Frank switched from his R4 embedded work attitude to an attitude more suitable for the new circumstances. R5 Doing so, he adapted to his subordinates and aimed at stimulating the process of R6 collaboration. R7 Along with the prolongation of the execution phase, project participants adapted R8 to the complexity of the everyday situation. They recognized that adverse attitudes R9 towards each other were not furthering collaboration and, as a result, had a negative R10 outcome on the work processes. Humberto, an Environmental Engineer, illustrated R11 such a case in point: R12 R13 When we asked him [Arturo] to do something, he said: “No, I don’t have time R14 for that” With an attitude of ‘I am too important, my work is important and you R15 are not important enough!’ Nowadays if you ask Arturo for help he says: “Okay, R16 I need a couple of that and you do this.” He has changed his attitude. […] That R17 makes things a lot easier... (Interview, May 2010) R18 R19 Humberto explained that his supervisor, who first portrayed a non-collaborative R20 attitude, changed in a positive sense, enhancing the collaboration between them. R21 Frank and Arthur’s stories are examples of the many other situations in which R22 project participants deviated their accustomed attitude to engage with the new work R23 environment and its newly required attitude. Especially after experiencing several R24 conflict situations, as mentioned in earlier chapters, project participants echoed that R25 collaboration within GUPC is a manner of ‘give and take’ (Fieldnotes, June 2010). R26 This practice of compromise involved shaping the work attitude, and, additionally, R27 required the acceptance of the other parties’ embedded behavior. Hence, project R28 participants adapted their work attitude with the purpose of improving the R29 collaborative relationship among them. R30 Besides altering their work attitude to the contemporary project organization, R31 actors modified and initiated work practices. A prime example of this behavioral R32 R33 R34

195 Chapter 6

R1 code-switching was seen at the Atlantic Project site, where it appeared that a work practice very important to Jan de Nul received much less attention within CUSA’s R3 daily operations: operators’ efficiency. Monitoring the machine operators’ results was common practice for Jan de Nul employees, while measuring the efficiency was not R5 a prior concern for employees from CUSA. According to Jan de Nul’s supervisor, R6 the outcome and value of a machine can improve when the operator is aware of R7 ‘winning seconds’, a proficient operation of the machine (Fieldnotes, May 2010). R8 Frank explained: R9 R10 A little more like this, twist and turn a little less: we always keep harping on it R11 (Interview, May 2010). R12 R13 Aiming at an increase of the operators’ efficiency, and thus, at altering their work R14 practice, the dredging company from Belgium organized an event for all operators in R15 the project field. Frank illustrated: R16 R17 At one morning, we invited the operators to come to the office of the project, R18 and we explained how they could adjust their operations. These men were super R19 impressed that they could come to the boss’s office and that we explained them R20 how things can improve. This was a big change for them. And what’s most R21 important, they themselves experienced how they could improve. They are not R22 waiting anymore for someone to say: “Hey, you need to change this.” No, now R23 they see it for themselves! (Interview, May 2010) R24 R25 Frank described that Jan de Nul employees taught the machine operators how their R26 work practices could be done more efficiently. However, the effect of the organized R27 event was larger than expected. Complementary to the modified work practices, R28 the operators developed a more pro-active work attitude and a hands-on mentality R29 in the field. In many other occasions I observed that, by learning from each other, R30 work practices were modified. CUSA’s field managers, for example, were accustomed R31 to managing the work in the field from the office, from behind their desks. In R32 collaboration with field managers from other project partners, such as Impregilo, R33 R34

196 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

they saw the value of managing the operations by being present in the field. Led by R1 the example, CUSA’s field managers altered their work practices and started to spend R2 more time among their employees in the field (Fieldnotes, May 2010). R3 About 80 kilometers away, in the GUPC head quarters in Corozal Oeste, project R4 participants were also modifying their daily work practices. For instance, Bart’s aim of R5 intensifying the collaborative relationship resulted in a need for more structure at the R6 managerial level of the project organization. This organizational level contained the R7 managers of each department within GUPC, such as the Environmental Department, R8 the Health & Safety Department and the Contracts Department. He illustrated: R9 R10 Today, -even without the Program Leader’s presence- I managed to get approval R11 for a weekly staff meeting: every Tuesday at 7am. And every month we’ll have R12 an Executive meeting. Otherwise you can’t work! Our last meeting was on R13 November 30th: we need more structure! (Fieldnotes, January 2010) R14 R15 Bart, a middleman, proudly explained how he succeeded in creating structure R16 among the middle managers by defining a fixed moment in time for their meetings. R17 Emphasizing the Program Leader’s absence signaled, according to Bart, that an R18 official authority was not required to establish a meeting structure. In the following R19 months a staff meeting was held every week, but it rarely took place on the planned R20 Tuesday morning (Fieldnotes, June 2010). Yet, the meeting itself is an example of R21 behavioral code-switching. It required actors, residing from different project partners, R22 sharing a room together, sitting around the conference table and discussing their R23 work together, with the purpose of enhancing interaction and collaboration amongst R24 them, and, the progress of the Third Set of Locks project. R25 By the same token, work practices were modified at the Pacific project site. R26 Aimed at improving collaboration, and making the work more efficient, the practice R27 of emailing was scrutinized. Lee, who is earlier in this chapter introduced as a R28 middleman, supported the Pacific Project Manager when he found out the person R29 started his workdays at 4 a.m. in the morning to go through all two hundred emails R30 he daily received. Lee clarified: R31 R32 R33 R34

197 Chapter 6

R1 I had to go into it and say, “Look, here’s how you do an email. Here’s where you put the ‘who to’, here’s where you put the ‘cc to’, here’s who you don’t R3 include on the list because they don’t need to know, and if you reply you do not cc everybody.” Just the basic things, because email traffic got out of hand and R5 everybody was trying to justify their existence internally with email, resulting in R6 that the Pacific Project Manager is reading emails that he should not be receiving. R7 (Interview, April 2010) R8 R9 Lee protected the Pacific Project Manager from receiving too many emails and R10 interfered in the practice of emailing. Aiming at improving the collaboration at the R11 project site, he requested project participants to modify their email habits to a more R12 workable practice for the organization. R13 Over the course of the collaborative process, project participants developed R14 an understanding of each other and of the project organization, resulting in new R15 ways of working. Aspiring a collaborative work environment, and striving for project R16 progress, project participant initiated new work practices at various level of the GUPC R17 project organization. The introduction of meeting minutes is a case in point. R18 When Lee and Bart discovered that most meetings were held without noting R19 what was being said or decided, they learned that project participants had set aside R20 this practice. Based on their previous experiences, the middlemen recognized the R21 need for such documentation and started logging the project meetings. Lee revealed: R22 R23 There’s just nobody in the organization that has the wherewithal or skills or the R24 language to do a proper set of minutes. […] So I took it on and basically grabbed R25 it and said, “No, you stay out, you stay out, and so here’s what it’s going to be”. R26 (Interview, March 2009) R27 R28 Lee noticed that project participants had no experience with making meeting R29 minutes and decided, recognizing the need, to conduct the task himself. Similarly, R30 Bart implemented the practice of making meeting minutes on a higher level in the R31 organization. Nourished by the power struggles and conflicts of interest between R32 the GUPC project partners, Bart felt the urge to document what was discussed and R33 R34

198 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

decided in their meetings, so that, in the future, one can refer to the agreements or R1 debates that were held. He highlighted: R2 R3 I started to make minutes. Other companies are not used to having those, but we R4 sometimes leave meetings here without knowing what has been decided. I want R5 to prevent that. (Interview, June 2010) R6 R7 Bart aimed at using the minutes as a conformation of the meeting and perceived R8 them as a clarifying tool in future debates. Initiating this work practice, Lee and Bart R9 intended to create transparency and precision, which could add value to the process R10 of collaboration. R11 The implementation of an information-sharing tool was another initiated work R12 practice in the project organization. Pablo, a Pacific Engineer Impregilo, invented a R13 technical library. He explained: R14 R15 I think we have GUPC practices now. For example, I am creating a library with all R16 the technical text and software that we have available. I prepare the library and R17 we can all use it together. I’m creating something that is not mine and is not from R18 Impregilo. It is something that is developed for everyone on our site. (Interview, R19 March 2010) R20 R21 Pablo developed and introduced the technical library with the intention of sharing R22 technical information and software among project participants. He stated this tool R23 is a ‘GUPC practice’ as he specifically designed it for the project organization. Later R24 in the interview, Pablo regretted that the tool could not be made available for R25 employees at the Atlantic project site, because a digital connection between the R26 projects sites was missing (Interview, March 2009). The lack of such a connection R27 hindered collaboration between the project sites, while the information-sharing tool R28 attempted to bring project participants, and their knowledge, closer together. R29 In this section I have illustrated how project participants purposefully adapted R30 to the language and behavior of their colleagues to accommodate the variety of R31 cultural norms and practices amongst them. Reflected in the adaptation to Spanish R32 R33 R34

199 Chapter 6

R1 or English, and the modification and introduction of work practices, cross-cultural code-switching portrayed how project participants mastered the project rules and R3 became able of using them. As such, they learned from the idiosyncratic common practices and contributed to the process of collaboration. In the following paragraph R5 I will illustrate several social activities that project participants organized with the R6 purpose of advancing their collaborative relationship. R7 R8 Organizing Social Activities R9 R10 The practices described in the preceding paragraphs mainly take place on a R11 professional and formal level, while also on a more informal level project participants R12 enacted, shaped or initiated practices manifesting collaboration. GUPC’s Works R13 Management Team had not initiated practices supporting collaboration on the work R14 floor. Consequently, to fulfill the need to get to know each other, to assimilate to the R15 various cultural backgrounds in the project, and to share leisure time together, actors R16 organized a variety of social activities. Luis, a Pacific Manager Sacyr, verified: R17 R18 Well, for sure no intentional event, like a team-building thing, has been planned. R19 I miss that a lot. For instance in September, when ten of us began on site, nothing R20 was there. But we met twice for ten minutes. It was short, but very important. R21 […] We put the tables together and did an introduction round: “who are you, R22 where are from, what have you done before?” that sort of questions. […] The R23 thing is that we are all here to build this project, so we have to work as a team. R24 (Interview, May 2010) R25 R26 Luis underlined that project participants initiated an introduction meeting to get R27 acquainted with each other and he emphasized the need for social activities: to R28 create a team. R29 Later in the year, when more project participants had moved to Panama, and R30 the project organization became divided in departments, the employees of the R31 Engineering Department organized an event called Secret Santa. Similar to other R32 departments, the Engineering Department consisted of a mix of both local employees R33 R34

200 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

and employees that were directly related to one of the four GUPC partners. Secret R1 Santa was a well-known event for some, while others were introduced to the game R2 for the first time (Fieldnotes, December 2009). In this event, as Christmas approached, R3 names of the department’s employees were placed in a hat and each participant R4 drew the name of a person for whom to buy a gift. In the weeks before the final gift R5 exchange event, participants, in the role of Secret Santa, left hints, in cards or little R6 gifts, on the desk of their colleague to raise curiosity. At the end of the game, in a R7 social gathering with drinks and snacks, presents were exchanged and Secret Santa’s R8 mystery was revealed. This event created an informal atmosphere in the Engineering R9 Department; employees got to know each other better, felt comfortable sharing R10 jokes and some found a trustworthy person helping them cover up their Santa role R11 (Fieldnotes, December 2009). After this event, project participants initiated other R12 social activities for the department, such as a dinner and drinks, and, every month, R13 birthdays were celebrated. Common practice in Panamanian office is putting up a R14 calendar on a wall displaying the project participants’ birthday, and per month an R15 event is organized celebrating the birthdays of that month. Events like Secret Santa R16 and the birthday celebrations intentionally stimulated actors sharing an informal R17 occasion together. R18 Likewise, aspiring a collaborative relationship, social activities emerged in the R19 project organization. One afternoon, when I had scheduled a meeting with Yazmin, R20 the Atlantic Document Control specialist, I could not find her at the project site so R21 left a note on her desk. Two hours later she called me to apologize and we agreed on R22 a location for the interview. She told me she went out for pizza with her colleagues. R23 Emphasizing the need for such informal initiatives, she stated that lunch breaks were R24 a valuable way for learning more about her colleagues (Informal conversation, May R25 2010). Her coworker Juan, an Atlantic engineer for Sacyr, told me about another R26 informally initiated social activity: football night. Every week, a group of project R27 participants gathered to play football. He clarified: R28 R29 Normally it’s Panama versus el resto del mundo (the rest of the world), but today R30 we play Atlantic versus Pacific. (Informal conversation, May 2010) R31 R32 R33 R34

201 Chapter 6

R1 Juan explained that, generally, the football teams were formed based on the national culture label, but for this game, teams were shuffled and based on the project R3 site. Juan was overly excited for this particular event because the Atlantic Project Manager had agreed to participate (Fieldnotes, May 2010). The relationship between R5 Juan and the Atlantic Project Manager is strictly hierarchical. Consequently, besides R6 getting to know each other in a different context and sharing leisure time together, R7 organizational roles might dissolve in such social activity. R8 A frequently seen activity aimed at strengthening social interaction and improving R9 the collaborative relationship, is going for a drink together. Frank aptly touched upon R10 this: R11 R12 I ask questions like ‘why is it this way?’ and ‘we need to do this and that?’ They R13 perceive that as an attack, while I just think that these are just things that come R14 to mind that we still need to do. They feel it as an attack though. And when you R15 do that too often, they completely block. Then you need to start over again: let’s R16 go for a beer! (Interview, May 2010) R17 R18 Frank revealed that, when he realized that the collaboration became tense, he invited R19 his colleague for a drink. He believed that sharing a drink together and spending R20 time outside the work environment stimulated the collaborative relationship. Being R21 in a more informal environment can support actors to feel more comfortable and R22 to feel more open to put their feelings or ideas on the table. Equally important as R23 celebrating Christmas, going out for pizza and playing football, is going out for a R24 drink expected to loosen work pressure, disperse work-related tensions and improve R25 collegiality. Furthermore, such social activities give project participants topics to talk R26 about during a workday as well. R27 All social activities illustrated in these paragraphs share the characteristic of R28 being initiated from the micro level of the organization. Project participants felt a R29 shortage of social interaction and wanted to become more acquainted with each R30 other. There seemed to be a natural drive to collaborate and a genuine goodwill R31 to create a collaborative relationship amongst them. Organizing the social activities R32 stimulated actors to share more than work together, to find friendships and to give R33 R34

202 Collaboration within GUPC: Amplifying Practices

attention to each other. Although social activities might blur the boundary between R1 the project participants’ work and private lives, the examples portrayed that this did R2 no disturb them. During the social activities, actors searched for a stronger bond, for R3 comradeship, and, complementary, they invested in social relationships for strategic R4 purposes, as to enhance the process of collaboration on the work floor. R5 R6 Discussion: Amplifiers of Collaboration R7 R8 In this chapter I highlighted how the GUPC project participants tried to create a R9 collaborative relationship amongst them. I portrayed how actors searched for R10 common ground, bridged the gap between them and adapted to cultural values and R11 practices. Aiming at the progress of the Third Set of Locks project, and understanding R12 the need to combine knowledge, to interact about ideas and to share skills, project R13 participants developed practices that generated collaboration. Their mutual passion R14 and shared goal supported them in this journey. Along the process of collaboration, R15 bridging actors emerged to better the work processes and molded relationship in the R16 project organization. Moreover, aspiring improvement in the collaborative process, R17 project participants enacted cross-cultural code-switching. Over time, language R18 barriers were reduced, established work attitudes and routine practices improved R19 and, in the flow of learning, new practices evolved. Finally, I gave various examples R20 of social activities that were organized with the purpose of expanding collaboration R21 between project participants. Connected by their aim to enhance collaboration R22 within the GUPC project organization, these practices guided project participants to R23 integrate, intermingle and involve with each other in their everyday work environment. R24 Therefore, I termed these practices as amplifiers of collaboration. R25 The practices highlight that, although the situation in the project might be R26 tense and acrimonious, an underlying need to collaborate connected the project R27 participants. Besides a strategic need to collaborate, mostly influenced by the R28 construction sector’s conditions requiring inter-organizational collaboration, actors R29 were generally willing to work together. Moreover, a feeling of togetherness R30 strengthened the nature of a collaborative relationship amongst them. Their shared R31 contexts and common representations supported project participants in facilitating R32 R33 R34

203 Chapter 6

R1 the solutions for problems and share knowledge (Dietrich et al., 2010). In the same way, grounded by traditions and interpretations from the past, project participants R3 constructed contemporary practices of collaboration (Hibbert & Huxham, 2010). Furthermore, a great deal of effort had to be invested into understanding the R5 world as seen by the other participants (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). Informed by R6 their adaptability and ability to compromise, project participants were encouraged R7 to interact and collaborate, and, consequently, a collaborative spirit evolved in the R8 project organization. Project participants aimed for collaborative advantage; that is, R9 to achieve outcomes that could not be reached by any of the organizations acting R10 alone (Huxham, 1996). R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

204 Chapter 7

Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill Chapter 7

R1 Introduction

R3 The two preceding empirical chapters described how collaboration was manifested in the GUPC project organization. Elaborating on how project R5 participants made sense of the cultural complexity in their everyday work life and R6 illustrating the practices of collaboration manifested within their collaborative R7 relationship, I detected diminishers and amplifiers of collaboration. In this chapter35 R8 I will focus on the internal dynamics between the ACP and CH2M Hill and how these R9 affected collaboration between the project participants. Particularly, I will describe R10 chaperoning, a practice focused on guiding, teaching, and supervising novices in the R11 world of project management. Illustrating how project participants dealt with the R12 contractually agreed relationship between them, I focus on how chaperoning came R13 about in the project participants’ everyday work life. This unique practice in project R14 management indicates that innovation in the contract for program management R15 services requires an innovative relationship between project partners. R16 The chapter is organized as follows. After introducing how ACP and CH2M Hill R17 came together, I will, in the second paragraph, introduce chaperoning practices. R18 In the third paragraph, I will describe how actors experienced chaperoning in their R19 everyday organizational life. Two personal stories of project participants and an R20 ethnographic account of a meeting between the project partners will illustrate how R21 this project management practice was present in the project organization. The final R22 paragraph highlights that, when joining a project organization, the participants’ R23 differing expectations and practices come to the fore at conflict situations. As such, R24 I will display benefits and drawback of chaperoning. Overall, this chapter portrays R25 that, while chaperoning was described in the contract, the practices related to such R26 notion were unknown and new to project participants. A great part of this chapter R27 has been published as an academic journal article (see Smits & Van Marrewijk, 2012). R28 R29 How they met… R30 R31 Although small projects around the Panama Canal have been developed over the R32 course of the past ten years, a project in the size and scope of the Expansion Program

R33 35 I have presented parts of this chapter at the 3th LAEMOS Conference, 7-10 April 2010 in Buenos R34 Aires, at the EURAM Conference, 6-8 June 2011 in Tallin, and at the 7th CMS Conference, 11-13 July 2011 in Naples.

206 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

has never before been conducted in Panama. In chapter four, I portrayed that the R1 Expansion Program had an estimated cost of USD$ 5.25 billion and was expected to R2 generate approximately 40,000 new jobs during the construction of the third set of R3 locks (ACP, 2006b). Within the ACP, both the size and the complexity of this mega R4 project brought discussions on how to conduct the program to the table. R5 Fed by expert support from around the world, ACP’s Board of Directors studies R6 three manners of executing this mega project. Their first option was a form of project R7 management in which the owner of the project hires a program manager to deliver R8 the project. This is a common practice in the construction sector: the project owner R9 appoints a specialized company to fulfill the assignment. In this scenario, the program R10 manager receives accountability and responsibility for the project and the final results R11 of the assignment. As part of this common practice the program manager obtains a R12 budget to work with, which can be used to hire specialized professionals to design, R13 plan and construct parts of the work. A general characteristic of this form of project R14 management is that the program manager carries a great amount of risk, but is R15 rewarded for the end results. R16 Opposite to the first option, the Board of Directors discussed the idea of the R17 ACP executing the complete program on its own. Several members in the Board of R18 Directors pictured the company well experienced in designing projects and dealing R19 with contractors, and a conviction grew that no external support was needed in R20 the execution of the Expansion Program (ACP Program Director, Interview November R21 2010). A great sense of pride played part in this opinion as, after one hundred years R22 of American governance, the ACP aspired to show its own capability for such an R23 undertaking. The ACP had managed various projects with contractors according to R24 the commonly known practice in project management. For those projects, the ACP R25 described the assignments in detail and hired contractors to execute the tasks. The R26 company had achieved changing the canal into a profitable business and the Board R27 of Directors was proud of this success. As such, the realization of the Expansion R28 Program was perceived as merely a greater version of the projects conducted before. R29 Consequently, several board members believed that the ACP needed experts to R30 execute this mega project for them, while others fought for ACP’s autonomy. R31 R32 R33 R34

207 Chapter 7

R1 Finally, a combination between the two opinions satisfied all members of the Board of the Directors. A program manager would be hired, but only for the parts R3 in the program where the ACP felt that support was needed. Different from the common practice in project management, the external party would not be allowed R5 to run the project autonomously. Instead, the ACP envisioned that its employees R6 would execute the project while learning from experts on their side. Key positions in R7 the project organization, where advice and teaching from a consultant was required, R8 were identified. The ACP described in detail what skills and knowledge they needed R9 the program manager to convey. In this unique practice of project management, R10 both the initiator of the project and its contractor would conduct the project. This is R11 unique, according to respondents, as never before a program manager was asked to R12 work in such close collaboration with the owner of the project. In order to select its R13 program manager, the ACP initiated a tender process for the program management R14 services required in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. R15 R16 The tender R17 In 2007, the ACP published a 220-page document (including appendices) expressing R18 their needs, expectations and tasks in the assignment for the program manager. R19 The document, named ‘The Invitation to Bid for the Program Management Services’ R20 (further abbreviated as Invitation to Bid), described the scope of the program R21 management services, the requirements for the program manager and the terms and R22 conditions under which both parties should operate. In four separate sections the R23 ACP defined its plans, rules and goals for the program management services. R24 The first part of the document portrayed the price list and clarified the notes R25 applying to the document. Part two explained the specifications, terms and conditions R26 for the program management services. Its first clause stated the general conditions, R27 such as number 1.3: R28 R29 In performing the Program Management Services, the PM[36] will work in close R30 coordination with the ACP’s existing personnel to form a unified team capable R31 of delivering the Program in accordance with ACP’s requirements. (ACP, 2007) R32 R33 36 The abbreviation PM refers to program manager. In this chapter, I will not use the abbreviation, R34 except when I directly quote authors or respondents who use the abbreviation.

208 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

Contradictory to a more common practice of project management, this clause R1 highlighted that the program manager was expected to profoundly collaborate with R2 the ACP members. Typically, the project owner transfers authority and accountability R3 over the project execution to the program manager (CH2M Hill Program Manager, R4 Interview September 2009). Yet, the ACP took an exceptional approach to the client- R5 contractor relationship and underlined their role deviation in further clauses. Various R6 sections in the tender document stated that the program manager “shall assist the R7 ACP in […]” (ACP, 2007), indicating ACP’s need for support and guidance rather than R8 the intention to transfer control and responsibility of the project. Indeed, the ACP R9 admitted not possessing the skills that meet the Expansion Program’s requirements R10 and therefore demanded a program manager to provide its services and advice. In the R11 tender document, the ACP noted the following objective for the program manager: R12 R13 Training both by working with the ACP personnel in performing Program R14 Management Services and also by means of seminars, handbooks and any R15 other material which would provide the ACP’s personnel with the best training R16 possible to acquire the skills necessary for assuming more responsibilities in the R17 supervision of the Works. (ACP, 2007) R18 R19 This objective highlights ACP’s expectation of the program manager to educate and R20 instruct the ACP employees. With regard to topics as confidentiality obligations and R21 insurance requirements, Part three of the document defined the contract clauses. R22 This section stated that English would be the ruling language in all documentation R23 and communication of the Expansion Program. Accordingly, to attract worldwide R24 companies, the Invitation to Bid itself was published in English. In the fourth and last R25 section of the document, the ACP described the instructions to bid, the selection R26 procedure and evaluation criteria for the tender process. Ten appendices supplement R27 the tender document with additional information. Here, information like a chart of R28 the ACP project organization, the Expansion Program’s schedule and a map of the R29 existing canal are enclosed. Overall, the full document served as the assignment for R30 a program manager supporting the ACP with the execution of the Panama Canal R31 Expansion Program. R32 R33 R34

209 Chapter 7

R1 The ACP received three bid submissions, all from American consultancy firms. As the Invitation to Bid was published in English and program management services R3 are mostly developed in the United States, it was not a surprise that American consultancy firms responded to the bid. Furthermore, the historical context of R5 American involvement in the construction of the Panama Canal might have created R6 extra attention for this mega project in the United States. To receive detailed R7 information of the submissions, the ACP invited each company to give a presentation R8 and elaborate on its price and plan for its program management services. After one R9 month of evaluation and review confirming that the chosen firm would meet the R10 project needs, CH2M Hill was awarded as the program manager. In the international R11 construction sector, this firm is a well-known enterprise with a global presence of over R12 23,000 employees holding expertise in consulting, design, design-build, operations R13 and program management (CH2M Hill 2011). In August 2007, a group of CH2M Hill R14 employees enthusiastically came on board of the project. “We committed to deploy R15 our core team together in three days,” remembered CH2M Hill’s Program Director R16 indicating the urgency of their presence in the project (Interview May, 2010). R17 R18 Shaping their relationship R19 The Invitation to Bid confirmed how collaboration between the ACP and the R20 program manager should come about: the program manager was hired to act in an R21 advisory capacity for the Expansion Program and expected to integrate its program R22 management services with those of ACP’s personnel, forming one functioning team R23 (ACP, 2007). Correspondingly, CH2M Hill was requested to share its knowledge and R24 expertise and, instead of working independently, the program manager was bounded R25 by various clauses. Clause 32 in Part three, for example, portrayed its authority in the R26 project: R27 R28 The PM shall have limited agency authority to act as ACP’s agent to direct, R29 manage and coordinate the activities of the Construction Contractors, provided R30 that the PM shall not be authorized to take any action or omit to take action to R31 lessen the rights of the ACP under the Construction Contracts. The procedure R32 for the due and proper exercise by the PM of its rights and obligations in such R33 R34

210 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

capacity shall be mutually agreed and set out in the Interface Protocol and the R1 PM shall adhere strictly to such procedure. (ACP, 2007) R2 Emphasizing the little amount of authority that the ACP had in mind for the program R3 manager, this passage underscores that the program manager was not expected to R4 execute the project but rather needed approval of the ACP before taking action. R5 Specifically, the program manager was allotted the task to educate, advise and guide R6 the ACP employees in the execution of the project. In fact, the ACP had planned an R7 intense collaborative relationship between its own personnel and that of the program R8 manager, as the Invitation to Bid stated: R9 R10 All the functions […] will be performed by the ACP and the Program Manager R11 hired under this contract. The duties will be performed by either ACP personnel R12 or the Program Manager staff as assigned or by a joint effort between both R13 parties, working as an integrated team. (ACP, 2007) R14 R15 This excerpt expresses ACP’s intention of having a program manager next to them, R16 literally, teaching the ACP employees what they needed to learn about the managing R17 of a mega project. For the execution of this new form of program management, the R18 ACP provided extended details of the program manager’s tasks and responsibilities, R19 as example of the engineer position illustrates (see Figure 7.1). Figure 7.1 portrays R20 that the task descriptions contain terms as ‘coordinating’, ‘applying knowledge’ and R21 ‘providing training’, all referring to a mentor role for the program manager. Therefore, R22 the Invitation to Bid prescribed an innovative form of program management: instead R23 of executing the project on their own, the program manager was required to be R24 on the sidelines and appointed for advice and guidance in the management of the R25 Panama Canal Expansion Program. R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

211 Chapter 7

R3 3.7.6 Engineers, Atlantic and Pacific Locks, Gates, Valves and Locks Controls Systems

R5 Shall assist the ACP in all engineering issues related to the Locks R6 Contract. Activities will include: R7 • overall managing of the PM engineering and other assigned staff required for R8 successful delivery of the Locks Contract; • coordinating the preparation and review of performance specifications. R9 reference plans and drawings for the Locks Contract; applying diversified knowledge of engineering principles and practices; R10 • • analyzing design problems that may be identified during over-the- shoulder R11 review of the Locks Contractor’s design, and developing new or improved techniques or procedures for their resolution; R12 • developing a strong working relationship with the ACP and Locks Contractor; R13 • establishing communication procedures to ensure other pre- construction activities are coordinated in the design process; R14 • working with the Program controls group with the objective of Program R15 delivery remaining within the Project Schedule and Project Budget; • implementing strategies and processes to mitigate any schedule or budget R16 issues; R17 • providing training to the team of Engineers, Atlantic and Pacific Locks, Gates, Valves and Locks Controls Systems; R18 R19 Figure 7.1 Description of tasks in program management services for Engineer (ACP, 2007: II-11) R20 R21 Turning to CH2M Hill, it appeared that its employees came to Panama expecting to R22 work in a standard project management operation. Having the common practices of R23 project management in mind, the consultants expected taking over the leadership and R24 responsibility of this undertaking. In the mindset of CH2M Hill employees, they were R25 going to lead the project, manage the contracts and handle the daily procedures and R26 processes needed to execute the Expansion Program. Kristin, a CH2M Hill Engineer, R27 expressed how she generally perceived a program management assignment: R28 R29 Most of the time I get on a project and I have a client that knows what they want R30 but has no idea how to get there and doesn’t want to mess with it. They’re just R31 kind-of (pause) lean back, and we do it. (Interview, March 2010) R32 R33 R34

212 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

This quote portrays CH2M Hill’s expected role in the Expansion Program: the company R1 assumed that the ACP hired the consultants to perform the program management R2 tasks in the project. However, after the first meetings with the ACP it became R3 clear to CH2M Hill that ACP’s expectations for the program management services R4 were different than the common practices in this field. The ACP had assigned the R5 program manager a different role; the project owner expected CH2M Hill to provide R6 training, to monitor the progress and to supervise the general work on site. Then, R7 the consultants realized: R8 R9 There were no intentions to give leadership out of hands and we were treated as R10 though we were staff (CH2M Hill Program Director, Interview May 2010). R11 R12 Remarkably, after reading the bid and signing the contract, the CH2M Hill consultants R13 found out that their role was different than what they had expected. Respondents R14 acknowledged that, based on their long and broad experience in program R15 management services, CH2M Hill had assumed that program management in the R16 Expansion Program would not be different than any of their previously conducted R17 projects. Their interpretation of program management services was based on former R18 assignments in which they received a leadership role in the projects. Martin, CH2M R19 Hill’s Senior Manager, recognized: R20 R21 Having the contract for the Expansion Program was much more important than R22 its content. Our company needed it… (Informal conversation, June 2010) R23 R24 Martin revealed that obtaining the contract for the program management services R25 in this mega project was of high importance for CH2M Hill. This might have been R26 the case for financial reasons, but it could also have been for reasons of status as, R27 for many people, this mega project was an undertaking they wanted to take part in R28 for future reference. As such, it is most likely that CH2M Hill’s management had not R29 paid close attention to the details of the Invitation for Bid. While this contract defined R30 a close collaboration between the ACP and the program manager, CH2M Hill had R31 overlooked this new practice of project management. For CH2M Hill, being part of R32 R33 R34

213 Chapter 7

R1 the Expansion Program, and winning the tender process for this mega project, played a bigger role than how this task would come about in the daily work practices. R3 Requiring an innovative form of collaboration, the contract between the ACP and CH2M Hill demanded a different kind of behavior from the program manager, R5 different than CH2M Hill consultants were familiar with from previous conducted R6 projects. They were accustomed to taking over the lead and executing a project, but R7 for the Panama Canal Expansion Program the CH2M Hill Engineers were required to R8 merely assist and advise the ACP in the project execution. In the following paragraph R9 I will introduce the chaperoning practices and illustrate how project participants R10 experienced this new type of contract for program management services. R11 R12 Chaperoning R13 For collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion Program, the ACP created a R14 unique practice in project management. Where in traditional project management R15 a program manager is hired to accomplish a project, the ACP invented a manner of R16 collaboration in which its employees were closely involved in the daily practices of R17 the project execution. This intense collaboration between the program manager and R18 its client, which is the foundation for execution of this mega project, is what I call R19 chaperoning. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a chaperone is a person R20 (as a matron) who for propriety accompanies one or more young unmarried women R21 in public or in mixed company. The word chaperone originates from the Latin word R22 cappa (‘cape’) that referred to a hood used to protectively cover a person’s head R23 (Oxford English Dictionary). In the 16th century the meaning of the word transferred to R24 a protective person, or a person that supervises a younger one. In America it signifies R25 an older person who is present at a social event for young people to encourage R26 correct behavior (Cambridge Dictionary). As an older, more knowledgeable entity, the R27 chaperone guides a younger person in an unknown world. The chaperone explains R28 the novice on what practices are expected from him or her, it shares its embodied R29 experiences and teaches how to operate in the new environment. It is the chaperone R30 controlling the novice’s behavior, but power can be in the hands of the novice. In R31 this project, CH2M Hill was hired to chaperone the ACP, to guide the company in R32 managing the Expansion Program of the Panama Canal. R33 R34

214 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

On an everyday basis, chaperoning entails a form of collaboration in which R1 two employees are hired for one key position: an ACP employee and a consultant R2 from CH2M Hill worked in a ‘one-on-one’ structure. The consultant acted as the R3 chaperone and the ACP employee was expected to learn practices of managing R4 complex projects and to gain knowledge and skills while conducting the tasks. The R5 ACP employee was perceived as the assistant (or the novice) of his chaperone. In this R6 role s/he dedicated her/himself to the administrative tasks, including personnel and R7 internal political issues, while the CH2M Hill consultant was focused on the technical R8 aspects of project management. At the same time, the ACP employee could see and R9 learn how the chaperone performed the tasks. The goal of this unique practice of R10 program management was to give ‘training on the job’ to the ACP employees, so that R11 they, in a later phase, could perform the tasks on their own. The contract therefore R12 stated the intention to have a large participation of the program manager in the R13 beginning, and, as the ACP employees acquired the expertise, gradually reducing its R14 presence (ACP, 2007). R15 Chaperoning was new for the CH2M Hill respondents. The consultants were R16 accustomed to come to a project, to take the lead and execute a program. They R17 were used to having the freedom to direct, to decide, and to be held accountable R18 for the outcome of a project. In the consultants’ previous experiences, a moderate R19 collaboration with the owner of a project was sufficient to succeed. This appeared to R20 be different in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. In this mega project, the ACP R21 kept the authority for decision-making, while CH2M Hill, as a chaperone, supervised R22 the work of the ACP employees, showed the practices of managing complex projects, R23 gave them training where needed and guarded the budget and time schedule of the R24 Expansion Program. R25 For the ACP employees, chaperoning was not a completely new practice. First R26 and foremost, with the Invitation to Bid the ACP proved its intention for chaperoning, R27 aiming at building an integrated team with experts on their side. Second, this form of R28 collaboration originates from the time when the American Government transferred R29 the canal to Panama. From the moment that the Torrijos-Carter Treaties were signed, R30 in September 1979, the Panamanians gradually played a greater role in the control R31 over the waterway (Greene, 2009). As the final transfer has been just over ten R32 R33 R34

215 Chapter 7

R1 years ago, many ACP employees remember these days. Back then, the American and Panamanian employees also worked side-by-side, transferring knowledge and R3 experience. Hence, based on their previous experiences, the ACP employees knew the chaperoning practices. In the following paragraph I will picture how the CH2M R5 Hill consultants and the ACP employees experienced chaperoning in their everyday R6 work practices. R7 R8 Experiences with chaperoning R9 Nourished by a different point of departure, the CH2M Hill consultants and the R10 ACP employees started working with an adverse attitude towards each other. The R11 consultants were surprised by their position and role in the project and questioned R12 their presence in the endeavor. When describing his company’s role and how R13 consultants experienced chaperoning, CH2M Hill’s Program Director stated: R14 R15 Contract oversight, contract administration, consultation, advice, but we are not R16 responsible for directing or deciding, we are not, and that is very hard for our R17 people. Most of our people here are very senior people, they have been around R18 for twenty, thirty or some even forty years and they are like; “Well, then why are R19 we here?” “Well, because they want us here”. (Interview, May 2010) R20 R21 CH2M Hill employees felt uncomfortable in the chaperoning role. Even though R22 their names appeared above the ACP employee’s name in the organization chart, R23 indicating superiority, the consultants did not have the right to control or power to R24 determine the project’s development. They felt frustration when their advice was not R25 followed and experienced a lack of support on how to conduct the teaching aspect R26 of their job; the role of a ‘trainer on the job’ was new to most CH2M Hill consultants. R27 The ACP employees, on the other hand, had mixed feelings about the collaboration R28 with the CH2M Hill consultants. Several ACP employees did not recognize the R29 value of an advisory capacity or were afraid that ‘the Americans’ would soon take R30 over leadership of the project. Conversely, there was a group of ACP employees in R31 favor of assistance in the management of this mega project. These ACP employees R32 found CH2M Hill’s presence beneficial, mostly because a majority of the regulations, R33 processes and values within the ACP originate from the American era, and thus, were R34

216 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

well known among the CH2M Hill consultants. Steve, an ACP Team Leader Assistant, R1 emphasized that he was positive about CH2M Hill’s role in the project: R2 ACP is, as I told you, we have a lot of ego persons here. So it’s better to have R3 an outsider to manage this complicated project. A design/build contract is R4 something new for ACP. We need to recognize that we don’t have the know- R5 how on how to deal with it. We have been doing excavation works, but this is R6 the first locks project that we are going to face in this generation. I mean, yes, we R7 have experience in drilling and blasting and excavation, and some of the drainage R8 work. And the project content is not difficult; it’s the magnitude, the size of the R9 project that overcomes us. We regret that we don’t have that experience, we R10 don’t have that now and therefore we need somebody to guide us. They need R11 to be here with us for at least the first couple of years, as planned. But let me R12 tell you; seeing how the contractor’s [GUPC] behavior is such a surprise to us, I R13 believe that we will require their support a little longer. (Interview, March 2010) R14 R15 Steve underscored that the ACP employees lacked sufficient knowledge and R16 experience in the management of mega projects. Taking it a step further, some R17 respondents stressed that completing the project without assistance of CH2M Hill R18 would be impossible for the ACP (Fieldnotes, April 2010). R19 As for the guiding and teaching aspect of the consultants’ role, however, R20 several ACP employees expressed no interest in learning from the consultants. These R21 members felt rather comfortable having “the Americans” run the program and found R22 it “refreshing to have them back” (Amanda, Interview April 2010). With regard to R23 CH2M Hill, the consultants often complained about their role in the project and the R24 attitude of the ACP employees. William, for example, shared his experience with R25 chaperoning. He told me: R26 R27 If you have a mentor-protégé relationship, it’s important that the protégé wants R28 to be mentored by the mentor. And that goes beyond respect. I might respect R29 you for who you are, but that does not mean that I will take in what you say. I R30 may not absorb your advice. Or adjust my own practices. So, that being said, we R31 have not the easiest relationship to work with. [It is] a very hard relationship to R32 work with (Interview, September 2009). R33 R34

217 Chapter 7

R1 William, a CH2M Hill Project Site Manager, pointed out that, although there was a contractually agreed mentor role for the consultants, he felt that the ACP R3 employees were not motivated to learn from the CH2M Hill consultants. Sensing an adverse attitude towards the consultants, William emphasized that the collaborative R5 relationship between the ACP employees and CH2M Hill consultants was complicated. R6 At various levels and aspects, chaperoning appeared to be a complicated R7 endeavor. One such case in point was related to the nature of the two organizations: R8 the ACP is a public organization and CH2M Hill is a private company. Dwelling from R9 differing work environments and practices, project participants often subscribed R10 conflicts amongst them to the differing root characteristics of their organizations. R11 CH2M Hill’s Kristin demonstrated: R12 R13 ACP is very - what’s the word I’m looking for? – very regimented. Their procedures R14 are very detailed and very strict, something that I’m not used to. […] Here it is R15 all very slow. So that is like a big change for me (sighs). I try to be patient; R16 I’m not a patient person by nature. I just keep reminding myself that this is a R17 different company. It’s a different culture. Everything is different in ACP and they R18 are a governmental agency so I have to keep reminding myself that there are R19 regulations in place that I may not be aware of. (Interview, March 2010) R20 R21 Kristin explained that collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill was problematic R22 due to the differing work environments of the organization. She professed bureaucracy R23 as a root characteristic of the ACP and felt this was a burden in her everyday work. R24 The ACP employees acknowledged their organization had many lengthy procedures, R25 however, they did not recognize those as a threshold in their daily operations. More R26 so, the ACP employees emphasized the term ‘CYA’ when the aspect of bureaucracy R27 was discussed (Fieldnotes, September 2009). ‘CYA’ abbreviates ‘cover your ass’, a R28 term also known in the banking sector, which referred to the act of protecting oneself R29 from criticism or legal and administrative penalties. Instead of making a decision, the R30 ACP employees were rather stimulated to find backup with their superiors. Based on R31 stories from the past, illustrating dismissal for making the wrong decision, the ACP R32 employees were afraid to be held liable for any mistake. As a consequence, changes, R33 R34

218 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

requests or new ideas were taken far up on the organizational ladder before a reply R1 was issued. With regard to chaperoning, this notion created an obstacle for quick R2 actions and progress in the field. CH2M Hill consultants interpreted the ACP work R3 attitude as ‘low accountability’, resulting in that it was difficult to “actually figure out R4 who you can pin down to get something done” (CH2M Hill Team Leader, Informal R5 conversation April 2010). The hierarchical focus, that is also a known trait in the Latin R6 American context, played an important role in the chaperoning practices. R7 Pointing at their root characteristics, the organizational values of the ACP and R8 CH2M Hill contrasted. The CH2M Hill Program Director revealed: R9 R10 When you work for a private corporation the bottom line is money. In our line of R11 work you have to be billable, you can’t be non-chargeable. This just comes with R12 the type of work that we do. A company, obviously, cannot afford to pay salaries R13 to people that are not billed to a client. So that is very different from any public R14 organization. (Interview, May 2010) R15 R16 The billability from CH2M Hill and the public values carried out by the ACP were set R17 square. For CH2M Hill values as time and money were important. Moneymaking was R18 the organizations profound motive. On the other hand, the ACP was focused on R19 its services to the local community and the public at large; the public good was its R20 driving factor. ‘For the people of Panama’ was an often-heard reasoning for working R21 at the Panama Canal. Serving the public good, transparency was one of the main R22 organizational values for the ACP, resulting in open, but lengthy procedures. R23 Regardless the initial differing interpretations of collaboration, work practices and R24 organizational characteristics between the two parties, both the ACP and CH2M Hill R25 decided to stay with the contract and work towards an integrated team as defined in R26 the Invitation to Bid. The ACP Managing Director verified: R27 R28 We have chosen the hardest way to execute a project. It would have been a R29 lot easier when it would have only been ACP, or only CH37, that would be a R30 lot easier. But, one of our goals was that the ACP people get experience from R31 somebody that has done this before. There would be no added value to have R32 R33 37 Project participants often abbreviated CH2M Hill with ‘CH’. R34

219 Chapter 7

R1 hired them to do 100 percent of the work. And it was too high of a risk to do it only with ACP people who have never done something like this. So, [pause] oh R3 well, we’re working it out. We’ll make it work […]. (Interview, June 2010)

R5 CH2M Hill’s project site manager and the ACP Managing Director shared the same R6 opinion: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill was challenging, but they R7 both expressed the spirit to do anything in their power to succeed. As a solution to R8 the conflicting collaborative relationship between the project participants, ACP’s top R9 management aimed at bringing them closer together and introduced the slogan R10 ‘One Team, One Mission’. R11 R12 ‘One Team, One Mission’ R13 “If it worked then, it could work now,” motivated the ACP Administrator (Interview, R14 May 2010). With the use of the word ‘then’ the Administrator referred to historical R15 events around the operation and control of the Panama Canal. In the transition R16 phase, from 1979 to 2000, when the control of the canal was transferred from the R17 American Panama Canal Commission (PCC) to the ACP, this concept was used to R18 set the stage for a smooth transfer of control and a seamless transition for Canal R19 costumers. In corporate communication at the time38, the slogan ‘One Team, One R20 Mission’ referred to the coordinated and harmonious work accomplished. Expressing R21 the meaning of the slogan, a PCC employee was quoted: R22 R23 We all attended the work meetings with the same spirit of cooperation, without R24 egoism or arrogance. […] We are all aware that we are part of the same objective R25 and that the goal is not to reach December 31, 1999, but to proceed without R26 showing that there has been a transfer. R27 The aim of reintroducing ‘One Team One Mission’ is bringing back the spirit of those R28 days. The Administrator was in strong favor of working as an integrated team and R29 38 Various stories on the transition period are depicted in The Panama Canal Spillway, the canal R30 newspaper. This newspaper was first published in 1962 and its last edition was distributed on R31 December 30, 1999, when the Panama Canal was transferred from the United States to Panama. Digital copies of The Panama Canal Spillway can be found at the George A. Smathers Libraries of R32 the University of Florida, online available at: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094771/01191/allvolumes2 (last R33 visited, September 2012) R34

220 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

had noticed the difficulties in the collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill. He R1 proposed re-using the slogan as an attempt to overcome the struggles within the R2 collaborative relationship. Both program directors agreed, and from that moment R3 onwards the slogan continuously filled discussions on the meaning of a cohesive R4 team. R5 In the everyday work environment, various expressions of the slogan came to R6 the fore. Under the flag of the ‘One Team, One Mission’ slogan, a management R7 workshop had been organized, t-shirts with a logo of the slogan were printed, access R8 to the ACP facilities (such as the gym and swimming pool) was granted to CH2M Hill R9 employees and both parties were using similar business cards, portraying a shared R10 logo as well. A budget became available for the organization of integration activities, R11 such as a dinner at Miraflores Locks and the sponsorship of the softball team. In R12 the Expansion Program, there was not a kick-off meeting or an explicit moment R13 organized to enlighten all project participants on the meaning behind the slogan. R14 While revitalizing the concept, it was been taken for granted that its connotation was R15 tacit knowledge. Most likely, this was the case for those ACP employees who had R16 worked for the PCC, but for fresher ACP employees and for CH2M Hill employees, R17 the slogan was new and related practices were unknown. R18 Although the slogan created awareness of the need to form an integrated team, R19 doubt remained among the project participants on whether ‘One Team, One Mission’ R20 reached its desired effect. Henry, CH2M Hill’s Program Manager, portrayed: R21 R22 It’s an attempt to put us all on the same page and I have learned that when you R23 keep saying it long enough, eventually it may happen. […] I don’t think we will R24 ever be a real team, but we are more accepted now. (Informal conversation, June R25 2010) R26 R27 Ensuing the slogan, Henry felt a slight change in the collaborative relationship with R28 the ACP employees. His ACP counterpart, Andreas, however, expressed his disbelief R29 in any attempt of integrating the two parties into one team. He aired: R30 I think it’s a waste of time. People are the way they are. I accommodate to them R31 and they have to accommodate to you, that’s how you have to live. When you get R32 R33 R34

221 Chapter 7

R1 married you have to accommodate to your partner and the other way around. You don’t go to a marriage councilor before you start! (Informal conversation, R3 May 2010)

R5 Indicating the relationship between the ACP and CH2M Hill, Andreas used the R6 marriage metaphor (see chapter five) and illustrated his lack of confidence in the R7 slogan. Both Henry and Andreas showed minor interest in the slogan as a solution R8 to the struggles amongst their organizations and were reserved about its expected R9 outcomes. R10 Revitalizing the slogan was a plea to denote the transition period in which R11 employees were taught that the success of the Panama Canal organization relied R12 on teamwork. Bringing back the slogan emphasized the relationship between the R13 Americans and the Panamanians. In the transition period, role segmentation existed R14 between the American government as a mentor and the Panamanian protégé. Back R15 then, the local employees were subordinate to the foreign leaders and, by means of R16 chaperoning, a similar relationship was created. By introducing this unique practice R17 of program management, the ACP gave a new meaning to the ‘One Team, One R18 Mission’ slogan. Just like in the transition period, the slogan signified teamwork. In R19 the Expansion Program, however, the collaboration was intensified with a prescribed R20 one-on-one structure. The ACP aimed at an equal relationship between the Americans R21 and the Panamanians, corresponding to how the transition phase was remembered. R22 R23 Collaboration in Practice R24 R25 Let us have a closer look inside the project organization. Illustrating the project R26 participants’ experiences of chaperoning, I will describe two personal stories. These R27 stories, based on my observations, were not the only stories that I encountered in the R28 project organization, but serve as a detailed illustration of how chaperoning came R29 about in the everyday work environment. First, we meet the 53-year old Paola, who R30 is employed with the ACP in the role of an Assistant Team Leader in the Expansion R31 Program. R32 R33 R34

222 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

‘It just does not work that way in the ACP’ R1 The security guard at ACP’s entrance gate had put a smile on her face when he R2 complimented her for today’s hairstyle. He granted her access as she showed her R3 ACP ID card. Quickly she drives to the parking area close to her office, building R4 number 732. Although it feels early, many colleagues have arrived already. A R5 parking spot is not difficult to find in this parking lot, the trick is to find one R6 close to the office. While she turns the key to switch off the car she notices that R7 the car radio says it is 7.17am. She’s late! She takes her bags from the car and R8 locks its doors. No matter where you park, the five-minute walk to the building R9 is still a long one in the warm morning sun. Carrying her lunch bag in one hand R10 and her purse in the other she has no trouble walking in her high heels. While R11 walking up the five steps towards the side entrance of the building she searches R12 for her ID card to swipe against the magnet. A loud ‘beep’ shows acceptance R13 of her card and the lock of the door is released. The metal door feels heavy, R14 but the breeze of cold air that welcomes her in calms her down. She sighs and R15 greets the colleagues that are already at their desks with a friendly buenos días R16 (good morning). Like any other morning, she first visits the ladies room. As her R17 house has no air-conditioning to cool off and the hour drive makes her feel sticky R18 anyway, she does her make up in the office. Here, she wipes off the sweat from R19 her face and refreshes to start the day. R20 The bright red lipstick expresses that Paola is ready for another day of work. R21 Twenty-five years ago she started at the Panama Canal as a student-assistant. R22 When the canal was transferred to Panama she moved up to the Human Resource R23 department. She married a colleague from the Environmental Office and gave R24 birth to three children. Her oldest son is now studying in Madrid, while the other R25 two are still in high school. Two years ago she accepted a team leader position in R26 the Expansion Program, after the company’s Vice President personally asked her R27 to join the project. It was an offer she could not refuse, and she has not felt any R28 regrets so far, although it is certainly not an easy task. R29 The relationship with her CH2M Hill counterpart is complicated. Every day R30 again she wonders why she and Edward have to work in the same position R31 and whoever had thought that this would be a good match. Clearly, they are R32 R33 R34

223 Chapter 7

R1 not. Paola finds him impatient, dominant and certainly not sensitive to the local culture. He just comes in, expects her to do what he says and he does R3 not understand a word of Spanish. And he has never tried either. Whenever the ACP organizes something, Edward seems to find it more of a burden than R5 a possibility to get to know each other better, whereas she whishes to build a R6 better relationship with him. Once, they went out for drinks after work, and their R7 conversation then smoothed some of the frustrations. Nevertheless, he still tries R8 to push her to the limit. Paola has worked long enough in the ACP to know that R9 it’s not necessary to do so, but Edward does not accept that. He has been here R10 for a year now, but he still wants to push, push, push. It just does not work that R11 way at the ACP… R12 While Paola comes up the stairs to the first floor she hears laughter in the R13 kitchen; some colleagues are having breakfast together. She drops her bags in R14 the chair besides her desk, switches on her computer and walks to the kitchen R15 for a coffee. A colleague has brought candies from the town he visited over the R16 weekend. Several colleagues gathered in the kitchen to talk about the weekend R17 and to discuss the latest news. Paola has always enjoyed these moments in the R18 office, it has created a connection with her co-workers and it gives a warm R19 feeling of friendship. Some consultants walked in to grab a candy, but most of R20 them don’t stay for a talk. Paola catches up with a few of her friends and agrees R21 to join them for lunch later. Back at her desk she goes over the last emails, R22 checks the companies website and reads the daily message of the Administrator. R23 Edward walks in. He seems to forget to ask about the weekend, or to say ‘good R24 morning’, but she is used to this by now. “Any news on the cell phones?” he R25 asks agitated. Paola closes her eyes for a second and sighs; “Not yet.” She knows R26 he needs more clarification: “I have filled in form 1792 on which I indicated the R27 features of the phones we need, the service it requires and I submitted the form R28 to our manager. He signed.” The frown on Edward’s face explains he does not R29 know what the next step is going to be, so Paola continues: “Now the form R30 needs to go to the Budget Officer, who determines to which department our R31 request needs to be charged to. Then, she sends the form to a purchase agent. R32 That person needs to develop the specifications and publish a tender. After she R33 R34

224 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

has received proposals we get to evaluate them. Then, our manager needs to R1 approve so that the purchase agent can send the order details to the supplier. R2 When the phones arrive we get to check whether they are the correct ones. If R3 so, we have our phones… That’s the procedure we need to follow.” Paola looks R4 over. R5 Edward cannot believe what he just heard: “The purchasing process here R6 is absurd! It’s all based on stopping the rare chance that something is bought R7 for a few pennies more than the lowest price out there,” he says agitated while R8 walking away. Paola gives a shrug and continues reading the web page. “This R9 is the way it goes here,” she reflects. It takes time, talks, forms and signatures R10 before you get something done. One cannot just go to a store, buy what is R11 needed and expect the company to reimburse the purchase. From the start, she R12 has told Edward that it would take a few weeks to have the cell phones available, R13 but he did not seem to be listening. “How rude,” Paola thinks. “He does not R14 respect the way things are done here!” R15 R16 Paola’s story portrays an adversarial relationship between the ACP employee and the R17 CH2M Hill consultant. The consultant was frustrated about ACP’s purchasing system, R18 while his ACP colleague felt that he did not show respect for the way things were R19 done in the ACP. Executing their tasks, the project participants relied on each other; R20 the CH2M Hill consultant brought technical knowledge to the project organization R21 and the ACP employee obtained insight on the internal organization. Complementing R22 each other, the counterparts were expected to collaborate. The second case also R23 illustrates a dependence of the consultant on his ACP colleague. In contrary to the R24 previous story, the two project participants in this story perceived chaperoning more R25 positively. Let us meet Tim, who is employed with CH2M Hill and a Senior Manager R26 in the Third Set of Locks project. R27 R28 ‘Where would I be without you?’ R29 It does not surprise him anymore, that after he greets the guard with a buenos R30 días (good morning), the guard replies in English. He feels guilty for his limited R31 knowledge of the Spanish language, but nods and continues his drive to the R32 R33 R34

225 Chapter 7

R1 office. When he locks his grey Honda CR-V he feels the sun burning in his face. However, the heat does not slow down his pace of walk to building 740. He still R3 feels the stress from Panama’s traffic. The aggressive drivers annoy him; just this morning, he could have been in three accidents. When he opens the office door R5 he senses the quietness belonging to the time of the day. It’s just after 6.30 in R6 the morning. He connects his laptop and goes through his email, a task that he R7 prefers doing before colleagues arrive. The family picture on his desk reminds R8 him of his daughter’s exams today. He misses them both, his son and daughter, R9 and promises himself to call them later today. Among the many emails an email R10 from a friend in the Middle East attracts his attention. They worked together for R11 CH2M Hill on a construction project in Dubai. His friend is now back in the US R12 and curious to hear about the Expansion Program. R13 Although Tim has been working for CH2M Hill for over 15 years, the R14 Expansion Program is only his second project abroad. After his divorce, the R15 project in the Middle East seemed to be a welcome change. Unfortunately, due R16 to the crisis he could not stay that long and soon he was transferred to Panama. R17 He has been in Panama for about nine months now, but it wears him down. R18 The climate here is exhausting and the traffic tiresome. Working for the ACP R19 has been a challenge, as the bureaucracy goes further into detail than he has R20 ever seen before. And he despises the political agendas behind it. Tim finds the R21 Panamanian people really friendly and he has actually made some friends here. R22 He is taking Spanish lessons and tries to practice over lunchtime with his ACP co- R23 workers. Despite the good things about being away from the United States and R24 the nice things about being in Panama, he keeps in mind that he might not stay R25 until the end of the program. As much as he wishes to be standing in the crowd R26 and watch the ribbon cutting to open the new set of locks, it’s part of being a R27 consultant: when you have achieved what you were hired for, you pack up and R28 move to another project. And it has been like this throughout Tim’s career and it R29 will not be different in this project. R30 In contrast to some of his CH2M Hill colleagues, the relationship with his R31 counterpart has worked out very well. From the first time they met in the office R32 they have gotten along. Carmen is very open to his suggestions and eager to R33 R34

226 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

learn from him. Although he finds the teaching-part of this job stressful at R1 times, her enthusiasm feels rewarding. He wishes he could teach her to be more R2 outspoken, and to criticize him when needed, but she just does not. Carmen is R3 calm and she always has a smile on her face. She received her masters’ degree R4 in the United States and is almost fluent in English. This had made collaboration R5 between them easier, because she is familiar with the English jargon. R6 While Tim reads further through his emails he notices that the office is R7 becoming livelier. People are starting the day and the smell of coffee fills the R8 corridors. A message from higher management pops up his computer screen. A R9 few weeks ago he had proposed to implement some changes in the team. Tim R10 believes that if his team were to physically be working on the project sites, they R11 would be more connected to the people they work with on a daily basis. Carmen R12 was quickly convinced, as she saw the benefits from having their team divided R13 over the project offices. However, she immediately saw some issues this would R14 create. Team members would not want to move, as they are attached to their R15 co-workers in this office and prefer to work close to the city. Furthermore, she R16 expected higher management not to agree with it, as for them it would mean R17 fewer people who work in this office. And less employees under your wings R18 means less status. Above all, she indicated that the project manager on site R19 would suspect the new employees to be the head office’s spies. Tim expected R20 some resistance to the change, but as he could strongly justify the need for it, he R21 had hoped it would be implemented quickly. In contrary, it made the organization R22 shake more than he could have ever imagined. Discussions were taken to the R23 top of the organization and rumors at the lower levels hit him personally. Last R24 week it went so far that Tim seriously considered resigning. Carmen supported R25 him all along. And today’s email again shows that he could not be running this R26 department without her. She knows her way around the ACP. She knows who to R27 go to and presses the right buttons to get the answers needed. The message on R28 his screen indicates agreement to Tim’s plan. Clearly, Carmen has been behind R29 this. With a grin from ear to ear he walks into Carmen’s office. She is pleased R30 to see him. “What can I do for you, Señor Tim?” she smiles. “Where would R31 I be without you?” he says thankfully. They have a short conversation about R32 R33 R34

227 Chapter 7

R1 Carmen’s actions, but Tim understands that he should not ask too much. This is her part of the position. They then quickly move on to the next step in this R3 change process. “She is just super, super good” Tim says to himself when walking back to R5 his desk. “Carmen is the key to this success!” he thinks, but he has not told her R6 in so many words yet. From behind his computer he writes an animated reply to R7 his friend from the Middle East. R8 R9 These two stories illustrate two different ways of how project participants perceived R10 chaperoning. Paola’s story depicted friction between the ACP and CH2M Hill R11 counterparts, while Tim indicated a positive outcome of chaperoning. In the R12 everyday practice of chaperoning, the ACP counted on the technical expertise of the R13 consultants, while CH2M Hill depended on its client’s organizational, political and R14 historical knowledge. As such, both parties possessed a token of control. The ACP R15 employee was expert in the contextual knowledge of the project, and s/he could R16 exert power with that knowledge, while CH2M Hill consultants called forth all skills R17 preventing being overruled by their client. Consequently, chaperoning created a R18 relationship of interdependence. R19 In addition to the two personal stories, an ethnographic account of a meeting R20 illustrates how chaperoning was manifested after the slogan ‘One Team, One R21 Mission’ was introduced. This observation gives insight into how chaperoning was R22 translated into the daily collaborative relationship and how practices of collaboration R23 were developed between the ACP employees and CH2M Hill consultants. R24 R25 ‘We are the Shadow of CH2M Hill’ R26 Every Tuesday at 10am this meeting was held in a conference room in building R27 740. For the amount of people attending the meeting, the space was small, not R28 bigger then 12m2. A rectangle shaped conference table with chairs around it took R29 up most of the space. A screen was set up on the left short wall, while the short R30 end opposite of it held a white board. The room had only one window facing the R31 inside of the office building, but a net curtain ensured that colleagues passing R32 by could not distract the meeting attendees. Most people were already seated R33 R34

228 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

when I arrived, but as it appeared that not enough chairs were available, more R1 chairs were taken from a nearby office. When I found a place to sit, I noticed that R2 the consultants were seated at the table, while their ACP counterparts formed R3 a second ring around the table. “It looks like a theatre setting,” I said to myself. R4 Attendees formed a U-shape facing to the left end of the table, where ‘the stage’ R5 is. From here, the CH2M Hill Program Manager started the meeting. (Fieldnotes, R6 2009) R7 R8 Remarkable about the set up of this meeting is that the CH2M Hill employees had R9 occupied the seats directly at the table, while the ACP attendees positioned themselves R10 as apprentices by taking a seat on the second row, behind their chaperons. R11 The setting emphasized the hierarchy in the relationship between the CH2M R12 Hill consultants and the ACP employees; the ACP employee acted as an assistant. R13 Hierarchy was also portrayed in who had leadership over the meeting. As a matter R14 of fact, in this meeting a specific space at the table was reserved for the CH2M Hill R15 Project Manager. By taking place on ‘the stage’ he received the status of the leader, R16 and he enacted this role. R17 R18 As usual, an agenda was handed out and an attendence list went around the R19 room while the meeting started. Henry started the meeting by emphasizing that R20 cell phones should be shut off; “There is a cup on the table. Whoever’s cell R21 phone goes off, pays a dollar.” Immediately, the person next to me searched in R22 his pocket to shut off his phone: “I paid last week,” he whispered with a smile. R23 Every meeting touched upon similar topics: the safety issues were reviewed first, R24 followed by more in-depth topics like the Three Week Look Ahead Schedule, R25 an Excel sheet that is discussed regularly. While each agenda point was being R26 discussed, I took notes and tried to understand what the project participants R27 talked about. Today, the Baseline Plan was heavily debated. In this plan the R28 contractor of the Third Set of Locks project [GUPC] defined how they expect the R29 project to develop: their milestones, their expected costs, time and goal factors R30 are described in detail. “A roadmap for the project,” revealed Josh. “The question R31 is whether we reject it or ask them to revise and resubmit.” Henry stated that he R32 R33 R34

229 Chapter 7

R1 is leaning towards rejecting the document; “This might get us somewhere,” he underscored. But Josh did not agree, he felt that a flexible attitude towards the R3 contractor could be beneficial in the future. From the corner, Mark remarked: “yes we should be flexible, but on the other hand, we do make a very clear R5 statement when we reject now.” (Fieldnotes, September 2009) R6 R7 It should be noted that the meeting was held in the English language. As the contract R8 was written in English, and because most CH2M Hill employees did not speak R9 Spanish, English was the main language in their meetings. For the ACP employees, R10 English was not their mother tongue. They felt hesitation for speaking and, therefore, R11 they were comfortable with a seat in the second circle of the meeting. Furthermore, R12 worth mentioning is the comment that was made about the use of cell phones in R13 the meeting. For the CH2M Hill consultants, switching off their cell phone when R14 entering a meeting room was common practice, while this was not the norm within R15 the ACP. I have observed numerous meetings in which the ACP employees answered R16 their phone in a meeting, or, when the phone rang they left the room to have the R17 conversation on the phone. By placing this comment in the meeting the CH2M Hill R18 project manager made perfectly clear that he did not accept the local habit, and he R19 created an incentive to prevent attendees from answering their phone. The meeting R20 continued: R21 R22 Henry felt supported and emphasized his opinion: “I’m being honest with you. R23 We want the contractor to give us the document that we want, because if we stay R24 flexible this process is going to be confused and critical for us.” ACP employee R25 Rene asked what the difference between rejecting a document or returning it as R26 revise and resubmit would be, and Henry explained: “Rejecting the Baseline Plan R27 would send a stronger message. When we label it as revise and resubmit that R28 means that ACP gives comments for changes, but that we are leaning towards R29 acceptance. We would use it as a foundation for our payments, but we cannot R30 pay them unless they hand in a new and better one. Thus, reject this one.” R31 Rene nodded and Henry continued the meeting with the next topic to discuss. R32 Even though time pressure was on, the atmosphere maintained to be relaxed; R33 R34

230 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

laughter filled the room frequently. After a round for further issues, Henry closed R1 the meeting with: “That’s it, bye.” He immediately stood up and left the room. R2 (Fieldnotes, September 2009) R3 R4 It may be clear that the discussion shown in the description of this meeting was R5 held among CH2M Hill consultants. The ACP employees were seated further away R6 from the table, listening to what was said and taking notes. Reluctantly, an ACP R7 employee asked for clarification. Often, participation from ACP’s side only came to R8 the fore when their opinion was asked directly or when questions related to the ACP R9 organization were raised. Especially because they were seated in the second row it R10 looked like the ACP attendees were hiding behind the consultant. In the apprentice- R11 role they showed a hesitant attitude in the meeting, whereas the consultant had no R12 trouble speaking up. Therefore, CH2M Hill portrayed a more dominant attitude, as R13 expected from a master teaching his trade. R14 Similar stories were heard from the field office, as an ACP Engineer explained: R15 R16 CH2M Hill is supposed to be advising us, but all I see in Cocolí is that they are R17 very much in control. They rule the office. And when I have a question, I’d rather R18 go to a CH person, because at least he knows the answer. ACP managers in R19 the same position always need to verify with their counterpart! […] On paper R20 [the ACP manager] is the boss, and yes he signs, but in reality it’s his CH2M Hill R21 counterpart who is making the decisions. […] We need a different approach: R22 CH should be in the second row in meetings. They are advising. In the current R23 situation we feel low, and we take a step backwards. Somos la sombra de CH! R24 (We are the shadow of CH2M Hill!). (Informal conversation, October 2009) R25 R26 This statement emphasized that the ACP employees felt subordinate to the R27 consultants. Although CH2M Hill employees formally had no decisive power, it is R28 illustrated that in practice they did control decisions. Dominant in their behavior, R29 CH2M Hill consultants played a leading part in the meeting. Formally they had little R30 authority, but in more informal settings CH2M Hill portrayed strategies to acquire R31 power. In project site offices, like Cocolí, I observed that CH2M Hill was pulling the R32 R33 R34

231 Chapter 7

R1 ropes. Hence, the meeting described above was not just one event; it serves as a symbol to the collaborative relationship in the project organization. It demonstrates R3 that the relationship between the ACP and CH2M Hill was more complex than what the slogan ‘One Team, One Mission’ suggested. In fact, chaperoning and the slogan R5 contradicted each other: the slogan aimed at an equal relationship while the Invitation R6 to Bid prescribed that the ACP was superior to CH2M Hill. Given the ambiguity of R7 these formal relations, it is not surprising that project participants struggled finding R8 satisfactory conditions for collaboration. R9 R10 Discussion R11 R12 In the role of the program manager in the Panama Canal Expansion Program R13 CH2MHill was hired to assist the ACP in this mega project, to guard budget- and time R14 schedules and to supervise the ACP employees in their daily operations. However, the R15 findings of my research portray different expectations of how collaboration should R16 come about. At the start of the project CH2M Hill expected to carry responsibility, R17 to be held accountable and to carry risks in the execution of their work. To them, R18 these were among the common practices in managing mega projects. In contrary, R19 the ACP prescribed chaperoning practices in the Invitation to Bid. Table 7.1 provides R20 an overview of the common practices and the chaperoning practices in project R21 management. The table portrays that the ACP merely assigned supervising and R22 training tasks to the program manager and kept all authority and liability to itself. In R23 the daily practices, however, I observed that CH2M Hill employees felt uncomfortable R24 in the role they were expected to carry out, as chaperoning practices were new to R25 them. R26 These differing expectations of how collaboration between the program manager R27 and client should come about resulted in power struggles and conflicts among the R28 project participants. The slogan ‘One Team, One Mission’ was reintroduced as an R29 attempt to smoothen the relationship among the project participants. This slogan R30 created awareness for the need to build an integrated team among the actors, but R31 this was not translated to the micro level of the project organization. Furthermore, R32 the collaborative relationship between the ACP and CH2M Hill as specified in the R33 R34

232 Chaperoning: collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill

Invitation to Bid conflicted with the objective of the ‘One Team, One Mission’ slogan. R1 As a result, the enacted relationship contained contrasting practices of collaboration R2 between the ACP and CH2M Hill employees. R3 R4 Table 7.1 Common versus chaperoning practices in program management R5 Common Practices Chaperoning practices R6 Contract Client hires Program Manager Client hires Program Manager R7 Responsibility Program Manager is responsible Client is responsible for project for project outcome outcome R8 Accountability Program Manager is accountable Program Manager is not accountable R9 Risk Risk is divided between client and Program Manager does not carry Program Manager risks regarding the program R10 Leadership Program Manager leads the Client leads the execution of the R11 execution of the program program R12 Training No training aspect Training is highly important, the Program Manager trains the client R13 Supervision The client supervises the Program The Program Manager supervises the R14 Manager’s results work of the client R15 Collaboration Moderate collaboration between Intense collaboration between Client Client and Program Manager and Program Manager R16 R17 Given this lack of reflection, practices of collaboration remained largely unconscious, R18 tacit and embodied (Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). The ACP and CH2M Hill revitalized R19 the embodied practices of the former American – Panamanian collaboration in R20 the Panama Canal. We have seen that cultural conflicts in situ were needed for R21 employees to become aware of the taken for granted practices. In these conflicts, R22 as Geiger (2009) shows, reflection takes place over practices of collaboration. At R23 these moments actors become aware of their routine practices and change towards R24 a discursive mode to negotiate practices that suite the project and its participants. R25 In these conflicts the ACP and CH2M Hill slowly negotiated a way to enhance R26 their collaborative relationship in, what Nicolini et al. (2003b) called a bricolage of R27 material, mental, social and cultural resources. This is exemplified in the separation R28 of authority between the ACP and CH2M Hill: the ACP employees took care of the R29 internal politics within the internal arena, while the CH2M Hill consultants took the R30 lead at project offices. R31 R32 R33 R34

233 Chapter 7

R1 In this specific case, chaperoning practices have shown both benefits and drawbacks for the project. Benefits are the transfer of knowledge to the local R3 situation of the client, as well as the high level of trust that is built in such a close relationship between client and program manager. Another benefit is the increase R5 of understanding for ‘the other’ in the collaborative relationship. Drawbacks of R6 chaperoning are found in personal mismatch and conflict. Another drawback is the R7 questionable durability of the transferred knowledge and the translations of new R8 expertise to future practices. R9 In this chapter I have portrayed that even though the contract states how R10 collaboration should come about, common practices are embedded in the everyday R11 organizational life of project participants (Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). R12 However, I believe that chaperoning practices can serve other projects if daily work R13 practices receive more attention. Since practices of collaboration are not fixed at the R14 start of a project, the discussion about how collaboration should come about in the R15 project organization needs to be stirred up. R16 Now that we have become acquainted with the field and the empirical data R17 of this study it is time to move to the last part of this book. In part III I answer R18 the research questions and draw conclusions. Furthermore, I elaborate on how this R19 study contributes to the academic debates and pose my ideas for future research R20 endeavors. This book ends with my recommendations for practitioners. R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

234 Part III Learning from the Field

Chapter 8

Cross-Cultural Work in the

Panama Canal Expansion

Program: A Collabyrinth Chapter 8

R1 Introduction

R3 In this concluding chapter it is time to look back at what has been learned and extract contributions for further research and practice. In retrospect, in chapter R5 one I portrayed the aim of the research and outlined the research question for this R6 study. A quest began to find out how actors deal with cross-cultural collaboration R7 in a mega project, and the Panama Canal Expansion Program was introduced as R8 the case for this study. In chapter two I presented the academic framework for this R9 research. Building on current theoretical debates on project management and cross- R10 cultural management, the practice-based approach was explained. This approach, R11 which I followed throughout this study, is focused on what actors do and say and R12 helps to explain complex organizational phenomena. As such, it supported me R13 in understanding what is actually going on when values, beliefs, experiences and R14 expectations of project actors come together in the project organization. In chapter R15 three I provided a methodological account on how this research was conducted and R16 I elaborated on my role as a researcher in the field. In chapter four we familiarized R17 ourselves with the context of this research; the Panama Canal, the Expansion R18 Program and its project organization were described and, by means of an interlude, I R19 gave insight into how collaboration between the project partners began. In chapters R20 five, six and seven I illustrated the practices of collaboration that project participants R21 enacted in their everyday work life. R22 This chapter will proceed from where the analysis portrayed in the previous R23 chapters has left us. In this final chapter I will further analyze the findings and answer R24 the research question. The departure point of this study has been the question: R25 R26 How does collaboration manifest itself in the daily practices of project participants in R27 the Panama Canal Expansion Program? R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

238 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

This research question was divided into a number of sub questions: a theoretical R1 question, two empirical questions and a more explorative sub question. These are: R2 R3 1. How are project management, cross-cultural collaboration and practices R4 debated in the current academic literature? R5 2. How do actors make sense of the cultural complexity in their everyday R6 practices? R7 3. What kind of practices of collaboration can be identified in the Panama R8 Canal Expansion Program? R9 4. How can we explain the cultural dynamics that appear in the project R10 organization? R11 R12 In the next paragraphs I shall answer these questions. This entails both theoretical R13 and empirical notions that are elaborated in the preceding chapters. Based on R14 the analysis I present the conclusions of this academic study and its contribution R15 to the contemporary academic debates. Finally, I portray five recommendations for R16 practitioners. R17 R18 Project Actuality R19 R20 Following the theoretical question set out to guide this research, I delved into academic R21 literature on project management, cross-cultural collaboration and practices. Bringing R22 the academic debates on these main topics together, as portrayed in chapter two, R23 supported me in developing an interpretative framework for this study. R24 Termed as the ‘projectification of society’, in which project-related features R25 become the dominant organizing principle in modern life, the need (or obligation) R26 for collaboration between various partners to execute large undertakings increased R27 (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Maylor, Brady, Cooke-Davies, & Hodgson, 2006; Midler, R28 1995). In the construction sector, conditions such as the long-term demand for R29 multiple, integrated services often require an extensive form of collaboration (Dietrich R30 et al., 2010). Governmental agencies, construction companies, consultancy firms and R31 other specialized organizations therefore join forces to combine their knowledge, R32 R33 R34

239 Chapter 8

R1 skills and assets needed to complete the endeavor. This brings together project participants residing from different societies, affiliated with various organizations and R3 possessing a multiplicity of interests. It creates a cultural complex work environment. Being the strongest liaison between organizations, collaboration is thus coined as a R5 highly significant theme in managing projects (Bresnen & Marshall, 2011; Cooke- R6 Davies, 2002; Van Marrewijk, 2009). R7 In recent years, various researchers have acknowledged the need to study the R8 ‘inside’ of projects so that what is actually going on in these organizations can be R9 further unraveled (e.g. Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Engwall, 2003; Söderlund, 2004; R10 Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). With a focus on understanding social phenomena, R11 the ‘practice turn’ emerged as a new perspective on projects and the management R12 of projects. Research in this realm aims to explain complex organizational practices R13 as they occur, and thus aspires to understand what people do, how they do it and in R14 what context practices are carried out (Miettinen et al., 2009; Nicolini et al., 2003a; R15 Orlikowski, 2010). Here, practices are understood as a bricolage of material, mental, R16 social and cultural resources and perceived as ways of actions that are relational, R17 mediated by artifacts and always embedded in a context of interaction (Nicolini et R18 al., 2003a). In the ongoing flow of activities and the process of sense making, actors R19 take a moment to review the situation, which Weick et al. (2005) call ‘bracketing’. R20 In this brief stability actors reflect on their behavior, and that of others, to draw new R21 distinctions, imagine new things and create new understandings (Tsoukas & Chia, R22 2010). Actors are reflexive about their practices and, in the midst of action, modify R23 their routine practices into new practices. The practices become temporarily fixed R24 and are put into use until new processes of sense making occur. R25 Consequently, a more fine-grained analysis of the micro activities of project R26 participants, as proposed in the projects-as-practice framework, will make a significant R27 contribution to the understanding of the internal dynamics in project organizations R28 (Blomquist et al., 2010). This framework allows for a deeper insight into how project R29 participants make sense of, and respond to, the complex, culturally diverse and R30 ambiguous project setting in which cross-cultural collaboration is required. Hence, R31 unraveling practices of collaboration enhances our knowledge on these collaborative R32 situations and clarifies what is actually going on within the project organization. R33 R34

240 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

In order to further understand the project actuality, the Panama Canal Expansion R1 Program offered a particular interesting vantage point for several reasons. In the R2 first place, its location outside the Anglo-Saxon economies and openness towards a R3 detailed examination of its participants and their practices, values and expectations R4 could further develop the field of project management research (Hodgson & Muzio, R5 2011). In the second place, its timing was parallel to this study, which gave me the R6 opportunity to be present from the moment that the tender was awarded for their R7 main project, the Third Set of Locks Project. Thus, I could study the start-up phase and R8 parts of the execution phase of the project. In the third place, this project matched the R9 principles that were set out for this study: location, language and access. Furthermore, R10 the cultural complexity that is central to this project offered great opportunities for R11 better understanding cross-cultural collaboration in infrastructural mega projects. R12 R13 A Collaboration Labyrinth R14 R15 It has become clear throughout this research that the topic of collaboration is a salient R16 theme when it comes to the execution of a mega project. The arena of a project R17 organization contains a maze of different (national, organizational, and professional) R18 cultures, identities and work practices combined with the project participants’ R19 distinctive interests and perspectives on the undertaking. In this complex network R20 of interactions, working together requires project participants to combine their R21 (cultural) practices, and to let go of some of their traditional values and methods. R22 Each guided by their own established ideas and distinct practices, actors need to R23 translate and negotiate their differences into more amenable forms of deployment. R24 However, finding ways to capture all the actors’ desires for the collaboration into a R25 satisfying manner is often not an easy task. R26 While many scholars underscore that collaboration is a key element in the R27 management of projects (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Vaaland, 2004; Van Marrewijk & R28 Veenswijk, 2006), there is a lot of evidence suggesting failures for collaboration. Cicmil R29 and Marshall (2005) illustrate relational and performance failings of a ‘two-stage R30 tendering’ procedure and conclude that a stronger facilitation is needed to sustain R31 long term benefits of collaborative work. Partnering, a development that emerged R32 R33 R34

241 Chapter 8

R1 as such a facilitation, appears to be rather an elusive concept than a model leading to the establishment of collaboration amongst organizations (Hartmann & Bresnen, R3 2011). Furthermore, Van Marrewijk et al. (2008) prove that collaboration in mega projects often fails due to differing project designs, project cultures and management R5 approaches. Moreover, the construction sector in general has been heavily criticized R6 for its insufficient project performances, lack of integration, confrontational attitudes R7 and pronounced blame culture (Dietrich et al., 2010; Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011; R8 Veenswijk & Berendse, 2008). Taking these results into account, we can question why R9 there is still an aim for collaboration. R10 Based on longstanding action research on collaboration, Huxham and Vangen R11 (2004) suggest that working together is often so difficult that avoidance might be R12 the best strategy for task execution. Following this spirit, I agree that, if there is a R13 choice, collaboration with other organizations should be evaded. However, there are R14 numerous situations conceivable in which working alone is not sufficient to achieve R15 desired ends. For the execution of a mega project, as portrayed earlier, collaboration R16 -not coordination or cooperation- is inevitable. This intensive, stable and long-term R17 arrangement entails sharing resources, aligning activities and establishing a high R18 degree of trust among its members (Keast et al., 2007). Owing to their scope, cost R19 and duration, the construction of mega projects demands collaborative arrangements R20 between organizations to overcome a lack of competencies and resource scarcity, R21 and to create value together (Dietrich et al., 2010). In these situations, collaboration R22 needs to be placed high on the agenda and receive most attention. Alternatively, in R23 some occasions the mega project can be cut into smaller, separate projects. If a part R24 of the project can be executed by one single organization, collaboration within this R25 distinct project might be avoidable. Yet, collaboration between the separate projects R26 remains highly important. Ensuring that the distinct projects are correctly geared to R27 one another, collaboration is essential in the final configuration of the mega project. R28 As an illustration, when building a railroad going through a tunnel, this mega project R29 can be divided into smaller projects; the building of the tunnel can be described as R30 a separate project from the construction of the railroad. At the interface of these R31 independent tasks, where the projects meet, collaboration is crucially important to R32 make sure that the tunnel and the railroad are well connected. One can understand R33 R34

242 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

the disaster and disgrace if the railroad could not be linked with the tunnel. Thus, R1 answering the question addressed above, collaboration is aimed for when working R2 together is the only way to accomplish complex tasks. R3 In light of the Panama Canal Expansion Program, project execution would be R4 impossible without the collaborative efforts of various organizations. In this complex R5 work environment project participants need to reflect upon and modify their R6 practices while finding their route in the project organization. Similar to other mega R7 projects, collaboration in this large undertaking began when the home organizations R8 explored and decided to form a bond. The GUPC partners worked together to R9 develop the tender document for the execution of the Third Set of Locks project, R10 and, in a similar manner, CH2M Hill had signed its contract for collaboration with R11 the ACP. Delighted to start this journey, the project partners had gained confidence R12 in each other and looked forward to a collaborative relationship for the coming R13 years. During the development of their bond, they were a homogeneous group R14 sharing ideologies about project values and principles. A ‘hyper culture’ (Alvesson R15 & Sveningsson, 2007) evolved among the project participants, reflecting an ideal R16 type of clear, uniform and convincing beliefs for the development of the project. R17 Among other values, transparency, efficiency, and accountability were considered R18 of paramount importance for the project partners in the Panama Canal Expansion R19 Program. However, applying these values to the everyday practices failed to occur. R20 We have seen in the GUPC organization, and in the collaboration between the ACP R21 and CH2M Hill, that, when the project partners actually commenced their works, R22 they collided. Their level of authority, their position, identity and performance in R23 the project were under dispute and clashing cultural values, differing organizational R24 interests and opposing ideas nourished conflicts among the project participants. R25 At these moments, actors searched for something to hold on to and for support R26 in unraveling the complexity of the organization and its context. Based on their R27 idiosyncratic frameworks, project participants enacted the ongoing stream of events R28 and created their own (socially constructed) realities (Duijnhoven, 2010). While making R29 sense of the GUPC organization, project participants translated the complexity of R30 their everyday work environment into more amendable forms of understanding. Yet, R31 the emerging diminishers of collaboration further divided the project participants and R32 R33 R34

243 Chapter 8

R1 created a ‘canal’ amongst them. Regardless of the institutional differences between the organizations or the embedded cultural values and practices, project participants R3 felt a need to attain a collaborative relationship within the project. A feeling of togetherness and personal commitment with colleagues and the project encouraged R5 actors to regenerate collaboration. Searching for the way to go, they changed from R6 a mode of un-reflexive practicing to a reflexive mode of communication (Geiger, R7 2009) and, reflecting-in-action, they shaped their routinized practices and initiated R8 new practices (Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). Amplifiers of collaboration emerged and R9 stimulated integration among the project participants. Pervaded with a collaborative R10 spirit, the project participants’ belief in the project and their identification with the R11 engineering work advanced the relationship in the GUPC project organization. R12 Likewise, in the collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill, in which both parties R13 understood that chaperoning practices created conflicts amongst them, their attitude R14 and commitment towards the project inspired a collaborative relationship. Mapping R15 the work environment, actors made sense of the cultural complexity in the project R16 organization. Their willingness to collaborate and their concern for the project R17 strengthened its development. Consequently, the social relations between project R18 participants and their shared drive to work together created practices bringing actors R19 together and building a collaborative work environment in the project organization. R20 Along this challenge, we have seen that practices of collaboration emerged to R21 support project participants to find their way around in the everyday work setting. R22 Against this backdrop, the journey towards developing a collaborative R23 relationship could be seen as exploring a collabyrinth. This neology of ‘collaboration’ R24 and ‘labyrinth’ reflects the complicatedness of collaboration. Organizational actors R25 are obliged to find their way in the complex situation and collaboration is essential R26 for understanding the terrain. As portrayed in the empirical chapters, actors first R27 disagreed on the route, and might have felt disoriented, but they soon came to R28 understand that working together is the way to deal with obstacles encountered R29 along their route. As such, practices of collaboration emerged. R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

244 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

Practices of Collaboration R1 R2 In the Panama Canal Expansion Program we have seen that cross-cultural collaboration R3 entails a wide variety of practices. These practices of collaboration contain actions R4 and activities that project participants enacted while exploring the collabyrinth and R5 making sense of collaboration in their daily work life. Studying this life through R6 ethnographic research methods gave me the opportunity to grasp how actors deal R7 with the cultural complexity in their work environment. I came to understand how R8 project participants translate, negotiate and generate practices of collaboration. As R9 such, the practices of collaboration that I identified in this mega project provide an R10 answer to the empirical questions of this research. R11 Leading from the data presented in this study, diminishers of collaboration, R12 amplifiers of collaboration and chaperoning practices are recognized. Extensively R13 described in the empirical chapters of this book, these practices portray a picture R14 of cross-cultural collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. As project R15 participants travel through the collabyrinth, these practices of collaboration emerged R16 in their everyday work life. Yet, some practices appeared to be obvious, while other R17 practices were hidden beneath the surface. As such, the practices of collaboration R18 that I identified in this mega project can be distinguished between manifest practices R19 and concealed practices. R20 Resulting from the longitudinal, interpretative ethnographic fieldwork period, R21 I gained an understanding of how project participants made sense of social reality. R22 Being there, in the organization of the Third Set of Locks project, allowed me to R23 participate in the life worlds of its participants, to built a relationship with them R24 and to grasp their common sense, everyday, spoken and unspoken, tacitly known R25 ‘rules’ within their work environment (Ybema et al., 2009). Attending the everyday R26 aspects of collaboration and engaging with what the project participants do and how R27 they talk about what they do has led me to a practice-based understanding of the R28 organizational life (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Miettinen et al., 2009; Nicolini et R29 al., 2003b). Furthermore, an iterative alternation between being close to the actors R30 and their practices and distancing to recognize how these practices are immersed R31 in a thick texture of connections steered me to see both manifest and concealed R32 R33 R34

245 Chapter 8

R1 practices. Manifest practices are those actions and activities that are directly visible and became apparent in the everyday encounters between project participants. R3 Concealed practices refer to practices that are covert and therefore not directly accessible; these are often implicit and covert in the everyday organizational life. The R5 manifest and concealed practices both consist of different interrelated actions and R6 activities abstracted from specific circumstances and comprising parts of social reality R7 for the actors involved. R8 Based on my analysis of the data, I was able to classify key practices of R9 collaboration in the everyday organizational life of project participants. These practices R10 highlight the ways in which actors deal with cultural complexity in the workplace R11 and capture the doings and sayings that adverse collaboration as well as that build R12 and connect towards a collaborative relationship. In the collabyrinth, three manifest R13 practices can be distinguished: (1) conflicting conditions, (2) seeking consent and R14 (3) crafting reciprocal relations. Besides, three concealed practices were prominent: R15 (1) submarining, (2) storytelling and (3) synergizing. These dominant practices are R16 dynamic and evolving. That is, as actors continuously translate and negotiate their R17 practices to make sense of the current situation, these practices are not merely static R18 and vast, but rather flexible and moving. What is more, these practices are not a R19 fixed outline for all actions and activities represented in the process of collaboration. R20 Nevertheless, the process of bracketing (Weick et al., 2005) is essential here. Actors R21 take a moment in time to reflect on their practice and, if needed, to modify the R22 practice. On a daily basis, processes of translation, negotiation and power struggles R23 are continuously present in the project participants’ actions and activities, and these R24 are reflected in the practices of collaboration. For illustration purposes, Figure 8.1 R25 gives insight into the collabyrinth and the dominant practices. R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

246 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 Figure 8.1 The Collabyrinth R19 R20 Manifest practices R21 The first manifest practice is found around the conflicts that obstructed collaborative R22 relations in the projects. Cross-cultural collaboration in the project organization was R23 colored by the various struggles among its project participants that hindered their R24 collaborative relationship, but simultaneously, conflicts were needed to bring about R25 differing perspectives, interpretations and meanings. Among the GUPC partners, for R26 example, the conflicts that emerged after winning the tender for the Third Set of R27 Locks Project influenced the collaboration amongst them. These conflicts arose out R28 of the differing perceptions about how GUPC’s project organization should be set up, R29 how profits and costs should be divided and, in addition, the knowledge that their bid R30 was lower than ACP’s allocated funds for this project created tension among Sacyr, R31 Impregilo, Jan de Nul and CUSA. Likewise, conflicts between the ACP and CH2M Hill R32 R33 R34

247 Chapter 8

R1 affected collaboration between them. These partners struggled over the different interpretations about the role that CH2M Hill consultants would play in delivering R3 program management services to the Expansion Program. CH2M Hill expected to independently perform program management tasks in the project, while the ACP R5 hired the consultants to provide training, monitor progress and supervise the general R6 work on site. Instead of being executors, CH2M Hill employees were contracted for R7 a pure advisory role. These examples underscore the work of various scholars (e.g. R8 Bresnen & Marshall, 2011; Engwall, 2003; Van Marrewijk et al., 2008) stating that R9 project organizations consist of complex interactions between its partners, because R10 each party is guided by its own established ideas and distinct practices. The data has R11 illustrated that differing ideas, perceptions and expectations of how collaboration R12 between project partners should come about resulted in conflicts amongst them. R13 In fact, project participants seem to need conflicts to be able to make sense of their R14 relationship and to attune how this relationship can be shaped. Scholars recognize R15 that, among other organizational activities, conflicts over goals, their interpretation R16 and history are co-present in everyday organization practice (e.g. Gherardi, 2000; R17 Nicolini et al., 2003a). Essentially, conflicts are an evident part of collaborative R18 projects (Vaaland, 2004). As we have seen, when joining a project organization, R19 the participants’ differing expectations and practices come to the fore at conflict R20 situations. During these periods of conflict actors become aware of the taken for R21 granted practices and are forced to reflect upon their practices. As Geiger (2009) R22 shows, problems with current practices of collaboration triggered for the emergence R23 of new practices. In the Panama Canal Expansion Program, actors became aware of R24 their routine practices and changed towards a discursive mode to negotiate practices R25 suitable for the project and its participants (Smits & Van Marrewijk, 2012). R26 The second manifest practice that was evidently present in the everyday R27 organizational life of project participants is ‘seeking consent’. This refers to the notion R28 that actors explored for shared understandings, mutual interests and common features R29 between the different groups. Project participants used metaphors supporting them R30 in making sense of their daily work environment. Metaphors are applied to express R31 feelings and experiences, to capture emotions and to make the complex situation R32 understandable. They are interpretations of a situation and express feelings about R33 R34

248 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

the circumstances. In the emotional process of trying to grasp the complexity of R1 the situation, to justify practices or to understand activities, metaphors were used R2 as abstract constructions enacting the development of thoughts and interpretations R3 about the situation. Furthermore, the metaphors used in the project organization R4 provided information about the collaboration between project partners and how R5 its actors experienced this. For example, portraying the GUPC project organization R6 as a ‘war zone’ comes with negative connotations relevant to understanding the R7 collaborative relationships and dynamics within the project organization. Describing R8 the organizational atmosphere as a battlefield gives insight as how to actors R9 constructing the embodied metaphor perceive the situation. Making the actors’ R10 intangible thoughts tangible, metaphors changed abstract understandings into R11 concrete and generally understandable explanations. R12 Furthermore, project participants found common ground by means of applying R13 labels to the various groups in the project organization. Commonly known features R14 for a group were captured in a label, which created a shared understanding among R15 the project participants. We have seen them distinguishing the cultural differences R16 and similarities encountered in the project organization and connecting these to R17 national, organizational or professional identities. Within the GUPC organization, R18 for example, four national culture labels were detected: ‘Spanish’, ‘Italian’, ‘Belgian’ R19 and ‘Panamanian’. In some occasions, project participants generalized these labels R20 to ‘northerners’, who were perceived as ‘straightforward’, ‘cold’ and ‘closed’, and R21 ‘southerners’ that were seen as ‘inefficient’ and ‘expressive’. The project participants R22 used the labels strategically; when it suited them to capture all Italians and Spanish R23 together, the label ‘southerners’ was used, but when a distinction between the two R24 was the intention, the national culture label was coined. R25 What is more, in their search for consent project participants found several R26 commonalities connecting them to each other. Supporting the process of sense R27 making, they explore mutual experiences and collective knowledge. A shared R28 interest for engineering works, their professions and language appeared to be such R29 commonalities. Furthermore, for particular actors, the experiences of the expat life R30 transpired into cohesion. Building a collaborative relationship, project participants R31 applied their interpretations of the past to understand the current conditions and R32 R33 R34

249 Chapter 8

R1 related to traditions, habits and rituals from previous contexts (Hibbert & Huxham, 2010; Philips et al., 2000). In line with Boyacigiller et al. (2004), these practices R3 illustrate that actors in a project organization tend to draw on previous experiences in order to create new cultural understandings and practices allowing them to R5 make sense of their everyday work environment. Participants relate to situations R6 they have endured earlier to find explanations for the complexity encountered in R7 the collabyrinth. Illustrated by the use of labels, metaphors and the shared passion R8 for their profession, project participants tried to foster collaboration. As such, the R9 manifest practice ‘seeking consent’ entails the actors’ search for parallels and R10 similarities so that a relationship amongst them can be developed. R11 The third manifest practice, ‘crafting reciprocal relations’, is displayed in the R12 participants’ motivation and drive for building a relationship amongst them. R13 Corresponding to the professional need to collaborate, members of the project R14 organization exposed an emotional necessity to develop a good understanding with R15 their co-workers. Their drive to work together set them in motion engaging with one R16 another. To create such connection actors organized various activities through which R17 they could get to know each other better, learn from the other and develop inside R18 experiences. The creation of a feeling of togetherness strengthens the nature of R19 collaboration and encourages open sharing of information and knowledge (Dietrich R20 et al., 2010). This may be illustrated by the introduction of ‘Secret Santa’ in GUPC’s R21 Engineering Department. The event, organized around Christmas 2009, created an R22 informal atmosphere in the department and employees became more familiar with R23 one another. Also the weekly football nights are an example of the activities that R24 improved the relationship among colleagues. Moreover, the ambition to create a R25 collaborative work environment was supported by various bridging actors; project R26 participants who fulfilled the role of middlemen. Besides helping project participants R27 with everyday work practices, middlemen assisted in conflicts that occurred and they R28 were focused on improving collaboration. Illustrated by the character of a mediator, R29 for example, roles of a negotiator and a translator were fulfilled to connect project R30 members and to build relationships on the work floor. Apparently, these roles were R31 needed in the project organization as these informally emerged and were enacted R32 by middlemen. Stimulating a collaborative work environment middlemen bridge R33 R34

250 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

the cultural gap between members of the project organizations and, therefore, are R1 crucial in the process of collaboration. Crafting reciprocal relations is recognized in R2 several studies. Dietrich et al. (2010) highlight that, in projects, partners mutually rely R3 on each other. Both the individuals and the organizations they represent must be R4 willing and able to combine their expertise so that, while benefiting from the pooled R5 knowledge, risk and uncertainty can be reduced (Dietrich et al., 2010; Huxham & R6 Vangen, 2000). Although the construction sector is not unique in this, the key driver R7 for collaboration in mega projects is the need to surmount the lack of competencies R8 and scarce resources and thus, to create value together. Since collaboration tends to R9 pull together actors from various organizations with a wide range of different skills, R10 backgrounds and experiences (Sackmann & Friesl, 2007; Vangen & Huxham, 2003), R11 project participants seek to create a comfortable environment within the project R12 organization. Central in this is their willingness to collaborate, which is fundamental R13 in building mutual trust and respect, and supports the effort from all players to accept R14 cultural differences and similarities encountered in their workplace. R15 Table 8.1 summarizes the manifest practices that came to the fore in this R16 research. Illustrated with examples from the research field, it shows that practices R17 of collaboration emerged in both conflict situations as well as in more harmonious R18 circumstances. Manifest practices are those practices that evidently come to the fore R19 when applying a ‘practice lens’ for studying organizational phenomena (Gherardi, R20 2009; Nicolini et al., 2003b; Orlikowski, 2010). While studying practices in action, by R21 taking a deeper look into the everyday life of project participants, I found that besides R22 the manifest practices several concealed practices exist. These are described in the R23 following paragraph. R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

251 Chapter 8

R1 Table 8.1 Manifest practices in the Panama Canal Expansion Program Practice of Explanation Illustrations Collaboration R3 Conflicting Actors become aware of taken for Fighting about low bid proposal conditions granted practices and reflect upon and profit/cost deviation R5 these practices. Struggling about roles and authority R6 Seeking consent Actors search for something that Using metaphors R7 is shared by different groups Labeling cultures Sharing a passion for profession R8 Crafting Actors have a drive to collaborate Organizing activities R9 reciprocal and use their willingness Bridging Actors relations for collaboration to build a R10 relationship. R11 R12 Concealed Practices R13 Complementary to the manifest practices, this study unravels a series of concealed R14 practices. Following the ethnographic research methods I was able to study R15 practices of collaboration ‘up close and in person’ for the period of one year. When R16 applying such a close look at what project participants actually do with regard to R17 collaboration, several covert practices in the collabyrinth ascended. These practices R18 occur at the micro level of the project organization and are not particular obvious to R19 its members. Being concealed, these practices are not directly accessible, observable, R20 or definable. In fact, they are rather hidden, tacit and often linguistically inexpressible R21 in a propositional sense (Corradi et al., 2010; Gherardi, 2009). However, through R22 lengthy observations, engaging with the project participants’ everyday collaboration R23 and how they talk about their collaborative relationship, while being sensitive to R24 how they make sense of and give sense to the organizational context (Ybema et al., R25 2009), I also came to understand the concealed practices that sustain in cross-cultural R26 collaboration. R27 The first concealed practice is called ‘submarining’. Used figuratively, this R28 term refers to the act to descend underwater and, like in a submarine, operate R29 autonomously. In the Panama Canal Expansion Program, submarining was seen after R30 a period of conflicts. Project participants distanced themselves from their partners, R31 focused on their own portion of the contract, on their idiosyncratic knowledge and R32 skills and, consequently, they remained separated from other partners in the project. R33 R34

252 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

We have seen that project participants within GUPC searched for structure as they R1 missed an overview of how their project organization was organized. They expressed R2 the need for insight into the deviation of roles and responsibilities and sought for an R3 organizational format. Project members remained focused on their own expertise and R4 the interest of their home organization prevailed because a shared commitment for R5 the GUPC organization was deficient. As a result, the collaborative relationship among R6 the project partners was adversely affected and tensions increased. Furthermore, R7 the recurrence of behavior from previous experiences and enactment of traditional R8 practices is captured in the submarining practice. Connected to the earlier mentioned R9 struggles between the ACP and CH2M Hill, it appeared that CH2M Hill consultants R10 enacted traditional habits rather than incorporated new behavior and practices suitable R11 for their advisory role. The CH2M Hill employees experienced difficulties letting go R12 established practices and felt uncomfortable in the chaperoning position. It troubled R13 them that they could not execute their familiar management tasks, but were asked to R14 stay at a certain distance. Moreover, submarining was seen when project participants R15 emphasized boundaries to distance themselves from each other. One such example R16 is found in the spatial settings within the project. The distance between the project R17 sites, which is roughly 80 kilometers, diminished a collaborative relationship between R18 project participants working in these offices. Project participants developed a strong R19 distinction between the project sites and subcultures emerged, the sites were seen R20 as separate projects. In fact, competition between the Atlantic and the Pacific project R21 site offices was stronger than collaboration. As a consequence, project participants R22 enacted these boundaries in their everyday practices and did not share the knowledge R23 generated at the project site offices. The same holds for the relationship between the R24 project site offices and headquarters. Project participants working on the Atlantic site R25 of the Panama Canal felt remote from the headquarters. The travel distance in time, R26 approximately one hour, was often brought up as a reason to postpone a visit to the R27 Atlantic project site, while the Pacific project site was visited frequently. Submarining, R28 discussed as a concealed practice, takes place in complex situations characterized R29 by uncertainty and conflicting environments. In the collabyrinth, partners choose R30 their idiosyncratic route, focus on their own specialty and disregard interfaces with R31 other partners. Following the paradoxes, influences and ambiguities surrounding R32 R33 R34

253 Chapter 8

R1 the project organization, cross-cultural collaboration is shaped by practices that are embedded in the actors’ life world. Swidler (2001) remarks that practices are the R3 infrastructure of repeated interactional patterns. Fundamentally, it is the repetition of the practice that informs contemporary action in the everyday work life. Project R5 participants searched for structures that created boundaries and, based on previous R6 experiences, boundaries were created. As Swidler (2001) aptly portrays, people are R7 forced to return to common structures as the need to engage one another prevails. R8 Indeed, antagonistic interchanges steer project participants to ancient practices R9 and imply a particular challenge for the development of new practices (Hibbert & R10 Huxham, 2010). In this connection it should be noted that when actors join a project R11 organization, their individual, organizational and professional identities as well as R12 other cultural aspects and work practices adapted elsewhere are embedded in their R13 thoughts and actions (Boyacigiller et al., 2004; Jacob, 2005; Sackmann & Friesl, 2007). R14 Hence, a collaborative relationship between project partners does not automatically R15 arise at the beginning of a contract (Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011). Consequently, R16 the distinction ‘we’ often appeared as a significant marker of identity for a certain R17 group. Project participants constructed formal and informal boundaries maintaining R18 common practices and rules for collaborations (Bjørkeng et al., 2009), and therefore, R19 fragmentation waited in ambush. R20 The second concealed practice that I unraveled in this study is called ‘storytelling’. R21 Various stories were brought into the project or evolved in the collaboration between R22 project partners to build on and further develop a collaborative relationship. The R23 revitalization of the ‘One Team, One Mission’ slogan is a case in point here. This R24 slogan originated from the time that control over the Panama Canal was transferred R25 from the American Panama Canal Commission (PCC) to the Panamanian owned R26 Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP) and was introduced to plea for a smooth and R27 seamless transition period. Almost ten years later, ACP’s higher management brought R28 the slogan back to the workplace. This time to enhance collaboration between the R29 ACP and CH2M Hill aiming at an equal relationship between the Panamanians and R30 the Americans and similar to how the transition phase was remembered (Smits R31 & Van Marrewijk, 2012). Under the banner of the slogan, various activities have R32 brought the ACP and CH2M Hill employees somewhat closer together. However, R33 R34

254 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

the revitalization was not marked as such and many project participants never knew R1 the deeper connotation behind it. In addition, the Expansion Program was narrated R2 to the inhabitants of Panama, and beyond, as highly important for the future of R3 Panamanians, the development of the country and the canal’s competitive position R4 in the maritime world (ACP, 2006b). As such, a great sense of pride dominated the R5 project narratives that were told by the ACP and CH2M Hill employees. They were R6 proud to be affiliated with the project and saw it as a privilege to work on the R7 “registered trade mark for Panama” (Jaén Suárez, 2011: 299). A different project R8 narrative prevailed within the GUPC organization. Among its partners, the project R9 was seen as ‘just another project’. Hence, they perceived the project equal to other R10 projects in their careers, decided to roll up the sleeves and finalize the project so that R11 they could move on to the next one. Many times, the members of GUPC uttered R12 the mantra ‘the work needs to be done’. This repeated phrase expressed their basic R13 drive to finalize the project. It illustrates that, even though the circumstances were R14 not ideal, project participants were prepared to put their shoulders to the wheel for R15 the execution of the project. This pragmatic, shared spirit characterizes a down-to- R16 earth attitude; it is in the project participants’ nature to seek for (technical) solutions. R17 Accordingly, the differing narratives about the project shaped how participants R18 committed to the project and put effort in building a collaborative relationship. R19 The shared stories had an enormous impact on how this relationship is developed: R20 collaboration within the GUPC was rather loose, as project participants saw R21 this project as a temporary state of working together, while the ACP and CH2M R22 Hill developed a more profound relationship with the project. This is in line with R23 Veenswijk and Berendse (2008), who found that organizations may use narratives as R24 a means to engage individual actors in a collaborative process. Their findings suggest R25 that this engagement creates a dialogue recognizing the different experiences and R26 can enhance future work practices. Attempts to bring about collaboration, through R27 repeated interaction and storytelling, therefore supported project participants to R28 reshape and refine their collaborative relationship (Philips et al., 2000). Nevertheless, R29 because different narratives were told in the project organizations of the ACP/CH2M R30 Hill and the GUPC, occasionally the parties clashed and a more non-collaborative R31 situation occurred. R32 R33 R34

255 Chapter 8

R1 The third concealed practice in this study is ‘synergizing’. This practice was covert in the daily practices and only became visible over time. As project participants spend R3 more time together and recognized that only through collaboration the project could be realized, they opened up to each other’s ideas, expectations and practices. Cross- R5 cultural code-switching, a term coined by Molinsky (2007), refers to intentionally R6 shaping or adjusting one’s behavior and routines to the new circumstances. Aiming R7 at a positive spiral within the process of collaboration, project participants enacted R8 linguistic code-switching and behavioral code-switching. Attempts to overcome the R9 language barrier, like learning Spanish or translating for colleagues, were highly R10 appreciated among the GUPC project participants and resulted in language being R11 less of a hurdle in the daily work environment. Behavioral code-switching entails R12 altering the work attitude and modifying or initiating work practices. When Jan de R13 Nul experienced that their way of working distinguished from the CUSA operators’ R14 work practices, for example, they adjusted their embedded work attitude to a more R15 appropriate one. Aspiring a collaborative work environment, Jan de Nul initiated an R16 event to explain how the work could be done more efficiently, resulting in a more pro- R17 active work attitude and a hands-on mentality among the operators. Furthermore, R18 striving for project progress in the GUPC organization, a variety of new practices, R19 such as the technical library, were initiated. R20 Along the project’s prolongation, participants adapted to the complexity of the R21 everyday situation. They negotiated for mutual concession and shaped practices R22 to improve work processes. Besides improving existing practices, they discussed R23 different work practices and gradually new practices emerged. Moreover, synergizing R24 is portrayed in chaperoning practices. CH2M Hill was hired to chaperone the ACP R25 employees: to guide the company in managing the Panama Canal Expansion Program. R26 In this chaperoning role, the consultants were expected to teach the ACP employees R27 (best) practices of project management, to give them training where needed and to R28 guard the budget and time schedule of the project (Smits & Van Marrewijk, 2012). R29 However, chaperoning practices were new to the CH2M Hill consultants, who had R30 expected conducting the project according to their common practices of managing R31 a project. When the work commenced, CH2M Hill employees understood that R32 they had a mentor-role in the project execution. Yet, informally, they soon claimed R33 R34

256 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

authority in the project site offices. Hence, synergy was created as both parties found R1 means to collaborate so that together they achieved results they would not be able R2 to achieve alone. R3 Developing over time, synergizing is a practice of collaboration involving the R4 translation, negotiation and evolution of practices. This continuous process takes R5 place among project participants who adjust existing work practices and develop R6 new practices that are useful and valid in their collaborative relationship (Bjørkeng et R7 al., 2009; Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011). Actors shape and reshape their idiosyncratic R8 practices, and, in this cycle of mutual interaction, create new practices as well as new R9 ways to address them (Geiger, 2009; Nicolini et al., 2003a; Shimoni & Bergmann, R10 2006). As such, collaboration in projects involves discarding old practices and R11 overcoming vicious circles of reinforcing perceptions (Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011) R12 so that new knowledge, that is not likely concordant with established traditions, R13 can be produced (Hibbert & Huxham, 2010). Keast et al. (2007) emphasize that R14 collaboration entails an interdependent relationship between partners synergizing to R15 create something and maintain a holistic perspective to the desired outcome. This is R16 in line with this study’s findings illustrating that project participants seek to build a R17 collaborative relationship. To make sense of their cultural complex work environment, R18 practitioners redesign practices and develop new ones together. Hence, over time, a R19 ‘negotiate culture’ might arise; a culture containing practices of each incorporated R20 culture as well as some elements of its own making (Brannen & Salk, 2000). An R21 example of an emergent practice is the technical library that was created within R22 GUPC, so that technical information and text could be shared between the Atlantic R23 and Pacific project office. R24 Table 8.2 provides an overview of the concealed practices found in this study. R25 It shows the practices of collaboration that were rather hidden and not directly R26 accessible, with their illustrations from the field. These practices, some diminishing, R27 others improving collaboration, occurred tacitly and concealed at the micro level R28 of the project organization. Both manifest and concealed practices consist of R29 interconnected actions and activities that illustrate how project participants make R30 sense of the cultural complexity in their everyday work environment. R31 R32 R33 R34

257 Chapter 8

R1 Table 8.2 Concealed practices in the Panama Canal Expansion Program Practice of Explanation Illustrations Collaboration R3 Submarining Actors recur to previous behavior and Searching for structure enact traditional habits rather than Marking boundaries R5 incorporate new roles and practices Storytelling Actors are guided by project stories Project pride R6 One Team, One Mission R7 Following the mantra Synergizing Actors learn from each other and Cross-cultural code-switching R8 acceptation among them grows Chaperoning R9 R10 Explaining the cultural dynamics in the project organization, the collabyrinth answers R11 the explorative question that was set out for this study. It is the complexity of working R12 together across cultures and practices that transpire these dynamics in the everyday R13 project setting. Exploring the collabyrinth, actors enacted, developed and initiated R14 practices to support them in their journey towards a collaborative relationship. R15 Although some practices rather hindered collaboration, the diminishers of R16 collaboration, these were part of the project participants’ exploration of the cultural R17 dynamics in their daily work life. Amplifiers of collaboration, on the other hand, were R18 practices that encouraged the development of a collaborative relationship between R19 the project partners. Hence, actors came into motion and found their ways, they R20 reflected upon and modified their practices to enhance a collaborative relationship. R21 Furthermore, we can conclude that the actors’ journey to collaboration, as described R22 above, is a routine practice in itself portraying an expedition leading to the necessity R23 of highly developed social relations amongst them. This entails that collaboration R24 advanced due to a strong personal drive to finalize the project successfully, rather R25 than because the project organization stimulated such a work environment. R26 After answering the sub questions for this study, it is now time to reflect upon the R27 impact of this research for both theory and practice. First, I will take the practices of R28 collaboration to another level of abstraction and connect them to the collaboration R29 continuum. This exercise illustrates this study’s contribution to the academic debates R30 on project management and cross-cultural collaboration. Second, I will discuss my R31 ideas for a follow-up on this research and, third, I will address my recommendations R32 to practitioners in the field of project management. R33 R34

258 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

The Collaboration Continuum R1 R2 The practices of collaboration convey insight into the development of a collaborative R3 relationship among project participants of the Panama Canal Expansion Program. I R4 suggest that these practices can be placed on a collaboration continuum representing R5 how they affect the product of cross-cultural collaboration. Although it is not my R6 intention to relate the research findings to outcomes in terms of project performance, R7 I propose that the collaboration continuum illustrates the relation between what R8 actors say and do with regard to cross-cultural collaboration and how this fosters R9 their collaborative relationship. Earlier, Huxham and Vangen (2000) introduced R10 a collaboration continuum explaining the extent to which collaboration actually R11 takes place between individuals or between organizations. From their perspective, R12 organizations with little interest in collaboration are placed on the left extreme of R13 the continuum and organizations that are fully involved in collaboration belong at R14 the right side of the extreme (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). In my view, however, the R15 collaboration continuum can reveal much more than whether or not collaboration R16 takes place; it illustrates how collaboration is manifest in the daily practices of project R17 participants. That is to say, the collaboration continuum reveals the outcomes of social R18 processes of collaboration and its consequences for the collaborative relationship in R19 the project organization. Indicating the practices of collaboration on the continuum R20 gives insight into how these practices exert an influence upon the collaboration. R21 Hence, while Huxham and Vangen’s (2000) collaboration continuum merely portrays R22 the perspective of the involved organizations on their collaboration, I propose an R23 extended version of the continuum showing the product of the internal dynamics R24 and its outcomes for the collaborative relationship. R25 It is important to note here that practices of collaboration are perceived as flexible R26 and ambiguous, but as established and routinized as well. In this study, practice R27 is interpreted through a practice lens, seeing how actors undertake their everyday R28 actions within a constantly evolving context and understanding the ‘situatedness’ of R29 practices (Corradi et al., 2010). Various authors (e.g. Weick et al., 2005; Yanow & R30 Tsoukas, 2009) have put forward that practices are embedded in the everyday life of R31 actors, but that, while practicing, actors are reflexive about their practices and able R32 R33 R34

259 Chapter 8

R1 to negotiate and shape their routine practices into new practices. In this process of continuous enactment, refinement, reproduction and change based on tacitly shared R3 understandings within the practicing community, actors socially construct their own realities (Duijnhoven, 2010; Geiger, 2009). According to Weick et al. (2005: 419), R5 “sense making should occur when people are socialized to make do, be resilient, treat R6 constraints as self-imposed, strive for plausibility, keep showing up, use retrospect to R7 get a sense of direction, and articulate descriptions that energize.” As such, sense R8 making is about the interplay between micro level actions and interpretations. Until R9 new processes of sense making occur, practices are established and routinized. R10 Therefore, to understand practices we need to see them as both dynamic and fixed. R11 Such a balanced perspective on practices inspires us to recognize them in the R12 everyday life of project participants. Hence, a classification of practices portrayed R13 in this chapter illustrates routine practices in the project organization. One needs R14 to bear in mind, however, that this classification is merely temporal and open to R15 change at any time. Furthermore, it is important to know that these practices are R16 invalid when seen without their context, as I could only discover them by studying R17 them in action. The practices described in the preceding empirical chapters are a R18 representation of all practices existing in the project organization at a certain R19 moment. However, they are demonstrated in many different ways and at many R20 different levels of the project organization. In another setting or at another given R21 time, practices of collaboration might come to the fore differently and other practices R22 might appear. Hence, alternative interpretations and other practices of collaboration R23 may contest the central ideas behind the collaboration continuum. The data in this R24 study, of course, do not let themselves be categorized strictly and placed on the R25 collaborative continuum mechanically, yet the analysis has led me to distil these R26 dominant constructions. R27 R28 ABC-practices R29 The practices of collaboration from this study can be abstracted into A (adverse), B R30 (building), C (connecting) practices. On the collaboration continuum, adverse practices R31 (A), placed on the left end of the scale, are those doings and sayings that withhold R32 collaboration or the development of a collaborative relationship. Building practices R33 R34

260 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

(B), located towards the middle of the continuum, refer to actions and activities R1 that attempt to bring about collaboration. And at the far right of the continuum R2 we find connecting practices (C): undertakings that actually enhance collaboration R3 between project participants. In order to place the manifest and concealed practices R4 to this continuum, it is necessary to focus on the explanation and illustration of the R5 practice in its context. That is, the setting in which the practices occurred indicate R6 its association with the ABC-practices. Figure 8.2 illustrates, for the Panama Canal R7 Expansion Program, how the manifest and concealed practices are connected to the R8 collaborative continuum. R9 The intensive conflicts, to begin with, were manifest in the everyday practices of R10 project participants and obstructed the development of a collaborative relationship. R11 Actors struggled and fought for their idiosyncratic practices, which resulted in various R12 conflicts in the project organization. As a result, collaboration was hindered and R13 efforts to create a collaborative relationship were diminished. ‘Submarining’ is similar R14 to this practice, but was more covert in the daily work environment. Consequently R15 to the conflicts between project participants, both individuals and the organizations R16 they represent held on to familiar behavior and practices rather than opening up for R17 new roles and practices. These practices did not support collaboration nor could it R18 improve a collaborative relationship; the practices withheld actors from developing R19 their collaboration together. As such, conflicting conditions and submarining can be R20 placed under adverse practices on the collaborative continuum. In essence, these R21 practices of collaboration could also be called counter-practices of collaboration, or R22 practices of non-collaboration, as they hinder a collaborative relationship to unfold. R23 The manifest practice ‘seeking consent’ can be assigned to building practices on R24 the collaborative continuum. In the everyday practice of collaboration, actors build R25 upon shared understandings and commonalities to create cohesion amongst them. R26 They make an effort to improve their relationship. The practice ‘storytelling’ was less R27 evident in the daily project organization. Project stories, a slogan, mantra or narrative, R28 could bring actors closer together, create or maintain a shared feeling for the project. R29 Through these practices participants were brought closer together and interrelation R30 between them began to evolve. Aiming at improving collaboration or building a R31 collaborative relationship, the practices finding common ground and narrating the R32 R33 R34

261 Chapter 8

R1 project belong to building practices. As explained earlier, building practices are placed in the center of the continuum because the effort to collaborate takes this group R3 of practices away from the left end, where there is no collaboration, and moves it towards the right end, where collaboration is highly enacted. R5 Crafting reciprocal relations and synergizing are, respectively, the manifest R6 practice and concealed practice fitting within the realm of connecting practices. R7 Crafting reciprocal relations captures the actors’ drive to work together and actions R8 to achieve a collaborative relationship. Hidden, but certainly present, synergizing R9 practices were enacted with the ambition to have a collaborative relationship. Over R10 time, project participants adjusted to each other, learned from each other and R11 nurtured together into a workable collaboration. Situated at the right end of the R12 continuum, connecting practices improve collaboration and aspire enhancing a R13 collaborative relationship among the project participants and the organizations they R14 represent.

R15

R16 Adverse Practices Building Practices Connecting Practices

R17 Conflicting conditions Seeking consent Crafting reciprocal R18 Submarining Storytelling relations Synergizing R19 R20

R21 R22 The Collaboration Continuum R23

R24 R25 Figure 8.2 The Collaboration Continuum R26

R27 All together, the collaboration continuum portrays a picture of the practices of R28 collaboration emerging among the project participants and displays the affect of these R29 practices on the development of a collaborative relationship. In a way, it addresses R30 the quality of collaborative relationships, which is seen as a key factor in successful R31 project outcomes, and provides an in-depth understanding of collaboration in project R32 organizations (e.g. Bresnen & Marshall, 2002; Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Dietrich et R33 R34

262 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

al., 2010; Pitsis et al., 2004; Van Marrewijk, 2005). It shows that adverse practices, R1 like fighting about the low bid proposal, as we have seen in the GUPC organization, R2 or the struggles about roles and authority, found in both the GUPC as well as the R3 ACP-CH2M Hill project organizations, withhold project participants from developing R4 a collaborative relationship. However, especially at conflict situations the actors’ R5 differing values and practices come to the fore. Acting as triggers for changing R6 practices, conflicts seem to be needed in a collaboration to create awareness R7 of routine practices and to stimulate actors to reflect and negotiate about new R8 practices (Smits & Van Marrewijk, 2012). In essence, the adverse practices obstruct R9 a collaborative relationship in practice, but, at the same time, they steer project R10 participants towards enacting building practices. The building practices portray the R11 actors’ effort to establish a collaborative relationship. In this study, practices like using R12 metaphors, labeling cultures and sharing a passion for the profession emerged as R13 building practices, because via these practices collaboration can slowly advance. R14 Connecting practices give an actual push to collaboration. These practices, such as R15 organizing activities, hiring bridging actors and cross-cultural code switching, enhance R16 a collaborative relationship. For further comprehensiveness, Table 8.3 summarizes the R17 ABC-practices in relation to the practices of collaboration in this study. R18 It is important to note that in a different context, or seen from an alternative R19 interpretation, practices might be explained differently. This underscores the R20 importance of the researcher’s idiosyncratic analysis and the study’s unique context. R21 The connection between the practices of collaboration to the ABC-practices as R22 described above is inherent to the Panama Canal Expansion Program and the project R23 organizations under study. In other projects these relations could appear to be R24 distinctive; other practices of collaboration might emerge and their connection to R25 the ABC-practices might be different. In addition, I would like to emphasize that R26 although the presentation of the practices might suggest a clear-cut, coherent line of R27 practices applicable to any other mega project, this was certainly not my intention. R28 The practices I presented in this study have guided me to unravel the practices of R29 collaboration and their connection to the collaboration continuum as seen in the R30 Panama Canal Expansion Program. R31 R32 R33 R34

263 Chapter 8

R1 Table 8.3 ABC-practices ABC-practices Practices of Explanation Illustration Collaboration R3 Adverse practices: Conflicting Actors become aware Fighting about low withhold collaboration conditions of taken for granted bid proposal and R5 practices and reflect profit/cost deviation upon these practices. R6 Struggling about R7 roles and authority Submarining Actors recur to Searching for R8 previous behavior structure R9 and enact traditional habits rather than Marking boundaries R10 incorporate new roles R11 and practices R12 Building practices: Seeking consent Actors search for Using metaphors attempt to bring about something that is R13 collaboration shared by different Labeling cultures groups R14 Sharing a passion for R15 profession R16 Storytelling Actors are guided by Project pride project stories R17 One Team, One Mission R18 Following the mantra R19 Connecting practices: Crafting Actors have a drive to Organizing activities R20 enhance collaboration reciprocal collaborate and use relations their willingness for Bridging Actors R21 collaboration to build R22 a relationship. Synergizing Actors learn from each Cross-cultural code- R23 other and acceptation switching among them grows R24 Chaperoning R25 R26 Contribution to the Academic Debates R27 R28 The collaboration continuum proves that a practice-based approach in project R29 management is helpful in understanding how actors make sense of cross-cultural R30 collaboration, what they actually do, how they do it, and under what circumstances R31 their actions and activities are carried out. Traditional research on projects and the R32 management of projects is mostly concerned with planning techniques, optimizing R33 R34

264 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

project performance and developing methods for project management (Morris, R1 2011; Söderlund, 2004). Focused on developing best practices, this research tradition R2 aims at increasing project efficiency and effectiveness. However, social processes and R3 human behavior are often left out in these studies. What is missing in this stream R4 of research is a critical approach exploring how relationships between individuals R5 and collectives are being shaped and reshaped, and how power relations create and R6 sustain social reality in projects (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006). Hence, incorporating a R7 social science perspective to gain more insight into the social complexities of projects R8 and the management of projects is becoming a promising line of research (Blomquist R9 et al., 2010; Bresnen et al., 2005a; Jacobsson & Söderholm, 2011; Van Marrewijk R10 & Veenswijk, 2006; Winter et al., 2006). Given the nature of this study, aiming to R11 understand how collaboration is manifest in the everyday life of project participants, R12 it contributes to this burgeoning stream of research. R13 In line with Blomquist et al. (2010), I belief that a practice approach in project R14 management can help us understand the internal dynamics and micro activities R15 that occur in a project organization. With a focus on what is actually going on in R16 project settings when values, beliefs, experiences and expectations come together, R17 a focus on practices can achieve a deeper understanding of the lived experience of R18 its practitioners (Bresnen, 2009). The concept of practice enabled me to explain the R19 complex social processes of cross-cultural collaboration as they occurred, and thus R20 to understand what people actually do with regard to collaboration, and in what R21 context practices of collaboration are carried out (Miettinen et al., 2009; Nicolini et R22 al., 2003a; Orlikowski, 2010). Through ethnographic research methods I was able R23 to unravel and explicate how project participants make sense of, account for, take R24 action and deal with their everyday organizational life (Ybema et al., 2009). A fine- R25 grained analysis of the micro activities with regard to collaboration and an analysis R26 from ‘within’ of what actors actually do when they collaborate contribute to the R27 understanding of projects and the field of project management research. With regard R28 to the field of organizational ethnography, this study provides insight into doing R29 ethnographic research in the construction industry and adds value for its longitudinal R30 presence in complex processes of collaboration. R31 R32 R33 R34

265 Chapter 8

R1 Studying the process of interaction in which practices are translated, negotiated, and new practices are generated allowed me to uncover the becomingness of collaboration R3 in the social interaction among project participants. Insight into the nitty-gritty details of the development of a collaborative relationship and mundane details of the daily R5 practices of collaboration has an explanatory value. It highlights that manifest practices R6 and concealed practices coexist in a project organization and illustrates the interplay R7 between practicing and reflection upon practices, as suggested by several scholars R8 (e.g. Geiger, 2009; Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). Furthermore, this study makes us aware R9 of internal dynamics within a project organization and emphasizes the impact of R10 cross-cultural collaboration in the daily activities of project participants. A focus on the R11 project participants’ practices gave insight into the cultural and institutional diversity R12 and its consequences to the micro level of the project organization. What is more, the R13 interaction between project partners illustrated how public values were enacted in R14 their everyday practices. While scholars in the debate on safeguarding public values R15 focus on the macro use of public values (e.g. Beck Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007; De R16 Bruijn & Dicke, 2006; Van Gestel et al., 2008; Veeneman et al., 2009), this study took R17 a bottom-up approach. It demonstrated that, at the micro level, public values were R18 barely reflected. Public values often remained at the macro level of the project, while R19 organizational, professional and personal values emerged on the work floor. R20 This study illustrates what happens in a cultural complex work environment, R21 where a multiplicity of cultures, but also a wide variety of ideas, and interests, R22 experiences and expectations come together (Boyacigiller et al., 2004). It emphasizes R23 the significance of interaction, the latent power struggles and its influence on cross- R24 cultural collaboration. Constructed in the social interaction among people, practices R25 produce the actors’ social reality (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Geiger, 2009). Hence, R26 this research contributes to the understanding of complexities, contradictions and R27 paradoxes that are inherent to cross-cultural collaboration (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). R28 The ABC-practices unfold and enrich the critical power of practices by explaining R29 how practices affect collaboration in the everyday work life of project participants. R30 As such, the collaborative continuum is not a set scale, but indicates the practices’ R31 outcome on collaboration and the development of a collaborative relationship. R32 R33 R34

266 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

Ideas for Future Research R1 The present study has set out to investigate how collaboration manifests itself in the R2 everyday work life of project participants in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. R3 By adopting the practice-based approach, this study created insight into the social R4 processes that make a project happen and illustrated project actuality (Cicmil & R5 Hodgson, 2006). Identifying practices of collaboration in this mega project provides R6 an image of a project in action and demonstrates how project participants make R7 sense of a cultural complex project setting. Build up from the actions and activities in R8 situ, this research offers a different picture from the dominant approach on project R9 management research. R10 For a deeper insight into social phenomena in project management, I suggest R11 that incorporating ethnographic research methods is the path to follow. Further R12 insight into the micro activities of project participants gives us a better understanding R13 of how project participants make sense of and negotiate their everyday work life, R14 and, with a focus on practices, we can learn what is actually being done as people R15 do in project management. Moreover, as a means of enriching our understanding R16 of cross-cultural collaboration in the management of projects, there is a need to R17 complement this research with studies of collaboration within other social contexts. R18 More specifically, there is a need for studies exploring how actors build and maintain R19 collaborative relationships in different national, organizational and sectoral project R20 environments. If the development of a collaborative relationship is context-bounded R21 and can be different from one situation to another, it is relevant to explore where R22 and when certain aspects of collaboration become emotionally, politically or naturally R23 opportune for organizational actors. Additionally, a focus on discourses, rituals or R24 symbols, as well as a combination between qualitative and quantitative research R25 methods, will enhance our knowledge on the ‘people’ side of project management. R26 The practices of collaboration that I presented in this book are based on my R27 interpretation and analyses of the fieldwork at the Panama Canal Expansion Program. R28 The picture that I portrayed derives from my ‘repertoire of interpretations’ (Alvesson & R29 Sköldberg, 2010) and is colored by the dynamic momentum of the field research, the R30 choices I made during the writing process and, not to forget, the interpretation of the R31 reader. Although the practices described throughout the study highlight some of the R32 R33 R34

267 Chapter 8

R1 main issues that are at stake for project participants in an environment where cross- cultural collaboration is required, we should also remain open for and not overlook R3 alternative interpretations for practices of collaboration. The practices presented in the preceding chapters guided me to unravel the ABC-practices out of the thick R5 accounts about cross-cultural collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. R6 From my point of view, exposure of both manifest and concealed practices enhances R7 our understanding of cross-cultural collaboration in project organizations and widens R8 current research on practices. I would like to note that the practices of collaboration R9 identified in this study might not comprise an exhaustive list. Further research in other R10 project settings may identify additional practices, or place the practices on a different R11 place of the collaborative continuum. R12 Whether a ‘negotiate culture’ evolved in the Panama Canal Expansion Program, R13 as was found in earlier research on cross-cultural encounters (e.g. Brannen & Salk, R14 2000; Clausen, 2007), can only be determined in a follow-up of this study. In this R15 study, data was only gathered in the first year of collaboration between the project R16 partners. From what I could observe, as demonstrated in this book, features of a R17 newly developed culture were in the making. Yet, a return to the field is required R18 to further examine if and how a culture typical for this project emerged. Besides, R19 a return to the field is desired to investigate whether another concept belongs in R20 between the prevailing notions ‘collaborative inertia’ and ‘collaborative advantage’ R21 (Huxham & Vangen, 2000, 2004). Instinctively, I feel that an additional concept occurs R22 in the process of collaboration, namely ‘collaborative exertion’. Collaborative inertia R23 refers to the negligible outcome of collaboration (Huxham & Vangen, 2000, 2004) R24 and, as the word inertia expresses, shows a tendency to do nothing or to remain R25 unchanged. When collaborative inertia occurs, practitioners undertake no actions R26 that could make collaboration happen. In contrary, collaborative advantage captures R27 the synergy argument reflecting considerable movements to achieve something R28 that could only be done without working collaboratively (Huxham & Vangen, 2000, R29 2004). From my perspective, however, the concept ‘collaborative exertion’ is missing. R30 Reflecting a slow motion toward collaboration outcomes, this concept captures R31 the actors’ efforts to the product of collaboration. In between the lack of motion R32 among actors at collaborative inertia and their fast motions resulting in collaborative R33 R34

268 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

advantage, this concept exposes a slow motion towards collaboration outcomes. As R1 said, it is merely a gut feeling. I was not able to go into depth to uncover this notion, R2 so future research should disclose the viability of the concept. R3 At the end of this book, the ‘so what’ question forces itself upon us. What can R4 we learn from this study on a practical level? If the process of collaboration has been R5 put under the microscope, then what are the lessons learned? How does this study R6 contribute to what actors in project organizations can do? Over the course of the R7 research I often received these questions, and now, they will be answered in the R8 following and final section of this book. R9 R10 Dear Project Participant R11 R12 In case you have read some of the preceding chapter in this book, it may come as R13 no surprise that I claim that culture and collaboration should be high on the agenda R14 in projects and the management of projects. Owing to the global nature of projects, R15 and to the construction sector’s requirements to work together, project organizations R16 nowadays consist of members residing from a wide variety of cultures. This study, R17 in general, illustrates how project participants make sense of their cultural complex R18 work environment and the process of collaboration, and creates awareness for the R19 need to view the everyday work from a cultural perspective. In addition, this last R20 section portrays five recommendations that can encourage working collaboratively in R21 a project organization. The five P’s, partners, possibilities, patience, philosophy and R22 promotion, capture my key recommendations for working in a cross-cultural project R23 organization. I want to stress that this list is not exhaustive, nor does it give tools; it R24 rather offers five pieces of advice supporting cross-cultural work in practice. R25 R26 Partners R27 The journey towards a collaborative relationship that is successful for all project R28 participants, starts early in the process of collaboration. Even before organizations R29 decide to form a legal bond of collaboration, like a consortium or a joint venture, R30 they need to unravel their idiosyncratic traits and learn about those of their possible R31 partners. Experts can scan the organizations, their cultures, values, work practices as R32 R33 R34

269 Chapter 8

R1 well as their ideas and expectations for the project, which provides clear insight into whether or not organizations are aligned to work together. Project partners would R3 do well by becoming acquainted with the organizations, and perhaps the individuals, with which one will be collaborating. A deeper insight into their organizations and R5 its characteristics provides the partners with information on the differences and R6 commonalties amongst them and involves a conversation about these topics. In the R7 dialogue about starting the journey together, one decides upon the issues that are of R8 great value for future collaboration and, together, organizations can decide whether R9 to continue or withdraw from a collaborative relationship. When organizations are R10 positive about working together, they are urged to consider how they will deal with R11 the differences and similarities between them in the near future. Imagining a common R12 future together depends on the discovery of common practices and shared interests, R13 although these might be re-appropriated and re-interpreted (Hibbert & Huxham, R14 2010). Hence, the journey can only begin when project partners have explored R15 their backgrounds and traditions, and have discussed and agreed upon how these R16 habits and experiences will be translated into concrete practices. As problematic R17 matters are identified and analyzed at an early stage, the risk of these issues sliding R18 and escalating in the further process of collaboration is reduced. Furthermore, a R19 continuous reflection on how these agreements come about on the work floor will R20 advance a collaborative relationship. Along the journey of collaboration and project R21 execution, project participants need to continually nurture the collaborative process. R22 R23 Possibilities R24 An overview of the project partners and their specific traits, cultures and practices R25 provides a deeper understanding of the project’s landscape and portrays possibilities R26 to work together. It is essential to be conscious about the wide variety of cultural R27 differences and similarities that can occur in cross-cultural collaboration, and the R28 possibilities for a fruitful collaboration in the daily work environment. Such possibilities R29 lie in combing the skills and experiences of the project partners, in exploring novel R30 ways of working together, and in obtaining an impression of the aspects in which R31 one needs to further develop. It is important to bear in mind that culture exists R32 at every level of the project and that there are various layers of culture. National, R33 R34

270 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

organizational and professional, but also sectoral levels of culture affect the everyday R1 work practices of project organizations as subcultures can evolve. Navigating R2 through the unfamiliar cultures and practices enriches the project participants with R3 new opportunities and challenges. That is, collaboration in a project organization R4 is not just a matter of discarding old meanings and practices, it is more a matter R5 of negotiating new meanings, adjusting existing work processes and initiating new R6 practices (Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011). In the Panama Canal Expansion Program, for R7 example, the CUSA operators were not used to paying attention to how they could R8 enhance the outcome of their work, while for Jan de Nul operators this was common R9 practice. They taught the CUSA operators how to twist and turn their machines R10 less times a day so that the work could be done more efficiently (Fieldnotes, May R11 2010). Working collaboratively, the CUSA operators modified their practices so that R12 their collaborative relationship with Jan de Nul advanced. The roles reversed at other R13 occasions. Hence, awareness of the cultural diversity, (best) practices and distinct R14 interests in the project organization provides an abundance of possibilities that can R15 enhance the outcomes of collaboration. R16 R17 Patience R18 It may be clear that for the development of a collaborative relationship proper R19 attention needs to be paid to dissonant expectations and rooted practices. However, R20 my advice is to remain patient when clashes occur and to recognize that avoiding R21 conflicts and frustration among project participants is impossible. In fact, sometimes R22 conflicts are needed to strengthen collaboration. They often contribute to the R23 articulation of possible misinterpretations and more vital issues such as divergent R24 goals for participation in the project. If well managed, conflicts stimulate openness R25 about the underlying causes of tensions in the relationship and, therefore, act as a R26 valuable ingredient in the process of collaboration (Vaaland, 2004). R27 It is my recommendation to adopt a more relaxed view about the role of conflict R28 in the project by recognizing conflicts as a natural aspect of people working together. R29 With regard to diminishing and amplifying collaboration, conflict can be either of the R30 two. They diminish collaboration when they are bogged down in emotions and lead R31 to distrust. In this situation, a collaborative relationship is unlikely to be fixed. On the R32 R33 R34

271 Chapter 8

R1 other hand, conflicts enhance collaboration when they motivate project members to discuss their ideas, perceptions and expectations about how collaboration among R3 them should come about. In this case, the conflict can remain separate from the daily work and its presence can amplify a collaborative relationship in the organization. R5 Furthermore, conflicts are discontinuities of practices and act as triggers for changing R6 practices (Smits & Van Marrewijk, 2012). At times of conflicts and serious incidents, R7 actors switch from an un-reflexive mode towards a reflective mode of communication R8 (Geiger, 2009). Yanow and Tsoukas (2009) called the moment when actors step out R9 of their routine practice to focus on how this practice can be adjusted reflection- R10 in-action, because, while practicing, actors reflect upon their practices and are R11 able to change their routine practices into new practices. Hence, conflicts seize an R12 opportunity to change embedded practices and initiate new practices. As such, my R13 advice is to have patience towards the role of conflict and to embrace the principle R14 of cultural clashes and the consequent tensions in the project organization. With R15 the help of an outsider, a specialist that is neutral in the conflicts, these tensions can R16 be used to enhance the collaborative relationship among partners, which can help R17 project managers to prevent cost overruns and delays. R18 R19 Philosophy R20 Referring to a narrative that reflects that goal of the project, a shared project R21 philosophy can align the project members in their commitment for the project and R22 support the development of a collaborative relationship. Pitsis et al. (2003) proved R23 that a future perfect strategy, that is, constructing a project that could be imagined R24 and already be completed, created commitment of the partners as they perceived the R25 project as unique and felt excitement for working on this project. In this example, the R26 project philosophy ensured that project members at all levels shared the same values, R27 believed that the project was ‘something special’ and had an ultimate shared goal R28 in mind, rather than partial success for the home organizations. Hence, providing R29 a ‘script’ that project members can translate into their everyday work practices, a R30 project narrative serves as a vehicle through which meanings are negotiated, shared R31 and contested (Veenswijk & Berendse, 2008). It is therefore important that the project R32 narrative captures a complete image of the project and can act as a guiding principle R33 in the execution of the project and the process of collaboration. R34

272 Cross-Cultural Work in the Panama Canal Expansion Program: A Collabyrinth

One cannot construct nor spread a project narrative alone; stakeholders and other R1 project partners need to be involved in the development of such an intervention. As R2 this is a specialized, time-consuming and skill requiring task, it is advised to leave the R3 process of formulating, framing and communicating the project philosophy to an R4 expert. Furthermore, it is important to remember that counter narratives could evolve R5 in the project organization. These narratives, telling a different story, should not be R6 ignored or diminished, but rather be studied to understand their meaning. Hence, it R7 is vital to continuously depict and reflect on the narrative of the project. R8 With regard to the recommendation of the project philosophy, elements such as R9 a logo, a shared project language and mutual norms and values can motivate actors R10 and create commitment amongst them. Besides, kick-off meetings, events around a R11 phase transition and other project rituals can support the preservation of the narrative R12 and accommodate the introduction of new practices. Finally, these interventions in R13 the project organization have the power to construct a project identity among the R14 project members. R15 R16 Promotion R17 Finally, the last recommendation aims at the need to promote and support R18 collaboration, because it is perceived as the critical success factor in projects and R19 the management of projects (e.g. Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Cooke-Davies, 2002; R20 Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). This strong formula therefore requires serious R21 attention and intensive support. In project organizations, actors need to distinguish R22 diminishers and amplifiers of collaboration and recognize how these practices affect R23 the development of a collaborative relationship. The collaborative continuum can be R24 useful in this exercise. If the practices of collaboration are identified, one can decrease R25 the diminishers and fuel the collaborative relationship by addressing amplifiers. R26 Furthermore, as portrayed in the collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill, R27 an innovative contract can demand new behavior of the project participants. When R28 new behavior is required, actors should be guided in this direction so that they can R29 develop practices belonging to this new behavior. R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

273 Chapter 8

R1 In the ideal world, a collaborative relationship is achieved when boundaries between companies blur (Keast et al., 2007). In this situation, which is called crossvergence, R3 cultures and practices merge and a heterogeneous culture is constructed (Jacob, 2005). Similar, the hybridization approach perceives cultures as being shaped and R5 reshaped through interactions with other cultures in which people consciously and R6 unconsciously insert new meanings (Shimoni & Bergmann, 2006). It is important R7 to note here, however, that the idea of ‘engineering’ a collaborative relationship R8 underestimates the impact of social dynamics in the development of a collaborative R9 relationship. Moreover, it is essential to recognize that collaboration is not the magic R10 tool solving issues within a project organization. Consequently, partners needs to R11 remain critical towards the theme of collaboration and, knowing how difficult it R12 is to work together, think it through before actually starting this journey together. R13 Especially in cultural complex work environments, it is advised to appoint someone R14 who is occupied with the collaboration between cultural diverse partners and who R15 can ensure that this topic receives its required attention. R16 In conclusion, these five P’s reflect my main advice for stimulating a collaborative R17 work environment in project organizations. They highlight the importance of a R18 cultural perspective in the management of projects and stress the need for explicit R19 attention to cross-cultural collaboration. Unraveling the cultural complexity in a project R20 organization, as is done in this study, helps us to understand the project actuality and R21 to obtain better insight into the lived experiences of project participants. An equal R22 focus on cultural differences and cultural similarities supports project participants in R23 understanding other cultures, act accordingly and reduce the risk of blunders (Ofori- R24 Dankwa & Ricks, 2000). As such, practitioners can take learning from this case study R25 in their prevention activities to remain within budget and schedule. And perhaps, R26 they will come to agree with me that culture and collaboration need to be high on R27 the project management agenda. R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

274 English Summary Cross Culture Work: Practices of Collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion Program

Dutch Summary Cross Cultureel Werk: Praktijken van Samenwerking in het Uitbreidingsprogramma van het Panamakanaal

Spanish Summary Trabajo Intercultural: Prácticas de Colaboración en la Ampliación del Canal de Panamá

Appendix 1

References

About the author

NGInfra PhD Thesis Series

on Infrastructures English Summary

R1 English Summary Cross Culture Work: Practices of Collaboration in the Panama Canal R3 Expansion Program

R5 Serving as milestones in mankind’s development, national triumphs and technical R6 advances, mega projects are a ubiquitous part of our everyday life. However, the R7 construction processes of these mega projects often fail to meet expectations as they R8 suffer from cost overruns, delays, and deficit in terms of quality and user satisfaction R9 (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, & Rothengatter, 2003; Van Marrewijk R10 & Veenswijk, 2006). This problematic performance has attracted academic attention R11 to the management of infrastructure projects. While most studies concentrate on R12 themes such as policy making, contracting, expected outcomes, risks and project R13 performance, both academics and practitioners call for more insight into the ‘people’ R14 side of project management (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Van Marrewijk et al., 2008). R15 Requiring a combination of skills, knowledge and resources that are organizationally R16 dispersed, the construction of a mega project can only be completed when R17 various parties collaborate. Since each party carries its own idiosyncratic cultures, R18 interpretations, and priorities, we can consider project organizations as complex R19 social settings. Hence, in this culturally complex work environment, collaboration R20 is considered key for successful project outcomes (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Cooke- R21 Davies, 2002; Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). R22 The objective of this study is to illustrate the internal dynamics between R23 participants in a project organization, and how this affects collaboration in a mega R24 project. The everyday organizational life in the Panama Canal Expansion Program R25 provides insight into cultural complexity of collaboration and gives a better R26 understanding of how project participants make sense of and deal with the cultural R27 differences and similarities they encounter in their work environment. In this study R28 I sought to understand how collaboration manifests itself in the daily practices of R29 project participants in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. R30 The theoretical foundation for this research lies in the academic debates about R31 project management and cross-cultural management. Within the field of project R32 management, this study demonstrates the perspective that projects are unique R33 organizational phenomena. Following this approach, researchers pay attention to the R34

276 English Summary

context, culture, and behavior within the project and recognize the need to explore R1 how the relationship between individuals and collectivities are being developed, and R2 how power relations affect the project actors. They claim that project management R3 research should focus on the ‘actuality’ in project organizations and should strive for R4 the lived experiences of its participants (Cicmil et al., 2006). In the scientific discipline R5 around cross-cultural management, this study connects with the perspective that R6 recognizes organizations as a multiplicity of cultures. Culture is not perceived as R7 equal to nation, but rather composed of explicit and tacit assumptions held by a R8 group of people, guiding their perceptions, thoughts, feelings and behaviors that, R9 through social interaction, are learned and passed on to new members of the group R10 (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). In project organizations, where different partners such as R11 public administrators, construction companies, engineers and subcontractors meet, R12 collaboration is inevitable. Hence, numerous cultural differences and similarities, as R13 well as distinctive practices and interests for participation, appear when firms and R14 people come together to build a mega project. R15 Concerned with everyday work activities and the action and interaction between R16 people, I adopted the practice-based approach to study collaboration. Research of R17 practices examines the internal dynamics in the organization and is interested in what R18 people do, how they do it, and under what circumstances they perform their actions; R19 it focuses on the micro-level interactions. During a year of ethnographic fieldwork, in R20 which I was present at all levels of the project organization, I gathered the data for R21 this study. With a practice lens, I discovered what was actually going on in the project R22 organization, unraveled the practices of collaboration that emerged, and came to R23 understand how project participants make sense of the diversity of cultures in their R24 daily work environment. R25 In the collaborative relationship within the consortium Grupo Unidos por el R26 Canal (GUPC), I detected practices that hindered the development of a collaborative R27 relationship, diminishers of collaboration, and practices that were aimed at enhancing R28 collaboration: amplifiers of collaboration. Chaperoning, a practice focused on guiding, R29 teaching, and supervising novices in the world of project management, represents R30 the collaboration between the ACP and CH2M Hill. These practices of collaboration R31 portray a picture of how project participants make sense of collaboration in their R32 everyday work life. In the process of collaboration, actors translated, negotiated, and R33 R34

277 English Summary

R1 developed practices to find their way in the project organization. Although they first disagreed on the route and felt disorientated, actors soon concluded that working R3 together was the way towards project completeness. I describe this journey towards developing a collaborative relationship as exploring a collabyrinth. This neology of R5 ‘collaboration’ and ‘labyrinth’ reflects the complexity of collaboration. R6 In the collabyrinth, six key practices of collaboration can be distinguished. First R7 three manifest practices: (1) conflicting conditions, (2) seeking consent and (3) R8 crafting reciprocal relations. And, second, three concealed practices: (1) submarining, R9 (2) storytelling and (3) synergizing. ‘Conflicting conditions’ indicate the conflicts R10 that obstructed collaboration in the project organization. ‘Seeking consent’ refers R11 to the notion that actors explored for shared understandings, mutual interests R12 and common features within the different organizational groups. The project R13 participants’ willingness to collaborate is captured in ‘crafting reciprocal relations’. R14 Used figuratively, ‘submarining’ depicts the act of distancing oneself from the project R15 partners and operating autonomously without taking other project participants into R16 account. ‘Storytelling’ portrays the stories and narratives that evolved in project R17 organization to enhance a collaborative relationship. As project participants came R18 to realize that collaboration is essential, they became more accepting to each other’s R19 ideas, expectations, and practices, which are reflected in ‘synergizing’. R20 Placing these practices on the Collaboration Continuum represents how they R21 affect the product of cross-cultural collaboration. On the continuum, the practices R22 of collaboration are divided into three categories: (A) Adverse practices, including R23 all practices that hinder collaboration, (B) Building practices, referring to actions and R24 activities that attempt to bring about collaboration, and (C) Connecting practices, R25 undertakings that enhance collaboration. The continuum proves that a practice-based R26 approach in project management is helpful in understanding what is actually going R27 on in a project organization, how actors make sense of cross-cultural collaboration R28 and in what context their practices are carried out. R29 Finally, I portray five key recommendations for working in a cross-cultural R30 project organization. Highlighting the importance of a cultural perspective in R31 the management of projects, these recommendations stress the need for explicit R32 attention to cross-cultural collaboration. After all, culture and collaboration should R33 be high on the project management agenda. R34

278 Dutch Summary

Dutch Summary R1 Cross Cultureel Werk: Praktijken van Samenwerking in het R2 Uitbreidingsprogramma van het Panamakanaal R3 R4 Een kennismaking met het veld R5 In onze samenleving zijn mega projecten overal aanwezig. Sinds jaar en dag R6 vertegenwoordigen mega projecten mijlpalen in de ontwikkeling van de mensheid, R7 dienen zij als nationale triomfen en zijn zij een blijk van technische vooruitgang. R8 De tunnel die Frankrijk met Groot-Brittannië verbindt, het Empire State Building R9 en de Nederlandse Delta Werken worden net als het Panamakanaal gezien als R10 een van de zeven wonderen van de moderne wereld39. De bouw van deze mega R11 projecten worden gekenmerkt door de grote omvang, de hoge realisatie kosten en R12 het lange ontwikkelingsproces; het duurt vaak tientallen jaren voordat een mega R13 project wordt opgeleverd. Tevens zijn er vaak veel partijen bij het constructieproces R14 betrokken en heeft dit proces een flinke invloed op de economie, het milieu en R15 de samenleving. Echter, resultaten van het bouwproces vallen meestal tegen: mega R16 projecten kampen met kosten overschrijdingen, vertragingen en gebrek aan kwaliteit R17 en gebruikersvriendelijkheid (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Van R18 Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). R19 In verschillende academische kringen wordt, en is er, onderzoek gedaan naar R20 mega projecten. Over het algemeen richten deze onderzoeken zich op thema’s als R21 beleidsontwikkeling, contracten, verwachte uitkomsten, risico’s en project resultaten, R22 maar er is tevens de behoefte ontstaan om meer inzicht te krijgen in de ‘mens’- R23 kant van project management (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Van Marrewijk et al., 2008). R24 Aangezien er verschillende partijen betrokken zijn bij het bouw proces, elk met zijn R25 eigen kennis, ervaring en specialiteit, kunnen we mega projecten zien als complexe R26 sociale omgevingen. Immers, iedere partij brengt haar eigen, diepgewortelde, R27 culturele waarden en werkpraktijken mee. De project organisatie wordt daarom R28 gekleurd door talrijke culturele verschillen en overeenkomsten, door specifieke R29 gewoonten en gebruiken en door uiteenlopende interesses voor project deelname. R30 In deze complexe omgeving wordt samenwerking gezien een kritische succes factor R31 voor project resultaten (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Van Marrewijk R32 & Veenswijk, 2006). R33 R34 39 American Society of Civil Engineers, www.asce.org (last visited, October 8, 2012).

279 Dutch Summary

R1 Cultuur speelt een belangrijke rol in samenwerkingsrelaties. Het idee dat cultuur gelijk gesteld kan worden aan nationaliteit voerde lange tijd de toon in onderzoeken R3 naar cross-cultureel management (e.g. Hofstede, 1980). Inmiddels heeft er in dit onderzoeksveld een verschuiving plaatsgevonden naar een perspectief dat minder R5 interesse heeft in het vergelijken van culturele aspecten, maar juist op zoek is naar de R6 interactie tussen culturen, de invloed van cultuur op een organisatie en hoe mensen R7 omgaan met de culturele complexiteit van de organisatie (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). R8 Mensen in organisaties zijn continue bezig met het interpreteren en aanpassen van R9 hun waarden, gebruiken en interesses. Ook geeft men een eigen interpretatie aan R10 de sociale debatten en abstracte beweringen over publieke waarden die gelden in R11 de samenleving. Efficiëntie, transparantie en veiligheid, bijvoorbeeld, zijn abstracte R12 termen die betekenis krijgen in de uitvoering van een mega project. Het academische R13 debat over het waarborgen van publieke waarden heeft tot op heden voornamelijk R14 aandacht besteed aan een implementatie van bovenaf, terwijl het eveneens R15 interessant is om te kijken hoe deze publieke waarden geïnterpreteerd en aangepast R16 worden in het proces van samenwerking, waarbij een schat aan culturen, interesses R17 en verwachtingen samen komen. Door specifiek aandacht te besteden aan de acties R18 en interacties van project medewerkers op het micro niveau van de organisatie, richt R19 dit onderzoek zich op de praktijken van samenwerking. Met andere woorden, wat R20 doen mensen als ze samenwerken in een cultureel complexe werkomgeving? Dit R21 brengt me bij het centrale thema van dit onderzoek. R22 In deze studie probeer ik te achterhalen hoe samenwerking tot uiting komt in R23 de dagelijkse praktijk van project deelnemers in uitbreidingsprogramma van het R24 Panamakanaal. Centraal staan het verkrijgen van inzicht in de culturele complexiteit R25 van samenwerking en het beschrijven hoe samenwerking tussen medewerkers in het R26 mega project tot stand komt. Een belangrijk uitgangspunt hierbij is het bestuderen R27 hoe zij (publieke) waarden, gebruiken en interesses interpreteren en aanpassen R28 om zo te begrijpen hoe actoren betekenis geven aan de culturele verschillen en R29 overeenkomsten in hun werkomgeving. R30 De hoge impact die mega projecten hebben op de samenleving en het feit dat R31 eerdere onderzoeken hebben aangetoond dat cultuurverschillen een oorzaak zijn van R32 project fiasco’s (e.g. Bresnen & Marshall, 2002; Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006) R33 R34

280 Dutch Summary

zijn een stimulans om meer te weten te komen over de interne dynamiek in het mega R1 project rondom de uitbreiding van het Panamakanaal. Dit onderzoek beantwoordt R2 daarmee de (academische) vraag naar empirische studies in mega projecten en R3 draagt bij aan kennis over de dagelijkse gang van zaken in project organisaties. R4 Het laat zien welke praktijken van samenwerking plaatsvinden in de wisselwerking R5 tussen actoren die veelvoud van culturele achtergronden, interesses en ervaringen R6 samenbrengen. Deze kennis geeft inzicht in de culturele complexiteit en is belangrijk R7 voor het begrijpen en verbeteren van project resultaten. R8 R9 Praktijken van samenwerking in mega projecten R10 De academische discussies over project management en cross-cultureel management R11 vormen de theoretische basis voor dit onderzoek. Binnen het veld dat gericht is op R12 projecten en het managen van projecten bestaat een grote verscheidenheid aan R13 onderzoeksbenaderingen. De traditionele benadering wendt zich tot projecten R14 vanuit een technisch oogpunt en is gericht op het ontwikkelen van betere werk R15 methoden zodat de doelmatigheid en effectiviteit van project management verhoogd R16 kunnen worden. Het doel van deze benadering is dat projecten op tijd, binnen R17 budget en volgens bestek worden opgeleverd. Een andere benadering binnen dit R18 onderzoeksveld vindt zijn oorsprong in de sociale wetenschappen en bestudeert de R19 gedragen organisatieaspecten van project organisaties (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; R20 Söderlund, 2004; Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). Deze benadering, waarbij dit R21 onderzoek zich aansluit, beschouwd projecten als unieke organisatie fenomenen. R22 Vanuit dit perspectief zijn projecten tijdelijke, sociale overeenkomsten waarbij R23 onderzoekers aandacht besteden aan de context, cultuur en opvattingen binnen het R24 project. Tevens is er vraag naar inzicht in hoe relaties tussen individuen en groepen R25 zich ontwikkelen en hoe machtsrelaties invloed hebben op de sociale werkelijkheid R26 van project medewerkers. Onderzoekers stellen dat er aandacht besteed dient te R27 worden aan de ‘project actualiteit’, de dagelijkse gang van zaken binnen project R28 organisaties, en zij vinden het belangrijk om de ervaringen van project deelnemers R29 vast te leggen (Cicmil et al., 2006). Door een project organisatie van binnenuit te R30 bekijken kan gedrag in deze organisaties worden beschreven en wordt kennis over R31 de interne dynamieken van een project organisatie vergaard. R32 R33 R34

281 Dutch Summary

R1 Recentelijk is binnen het veld van project management een benadering geïntroduceerd waarbij praktijken in het middelpunt staan. Deze benadering (de Practice Turn) legt R3 het accent op actie en interactie, op de details van het werk en bestudeert wat mensen doen en zeggen omtrent een specifieke gebeurtenis of bezigheid. Complexe R5 organisatie verschijnselen kunnen middels het praktijk concept worden uitgelegd. Dat R6 wil zeggen dat met behulp van dit concept inzicht verkregen wordt in wat mensen R7 doen, hoe zij dat doen en onder welke omstandigheden zij hun acties uitvoeren. R8 Het deelnemen aan een praktijk is een continue proces waarin men, op basis van R9 gedeelde impliciete kennis, gezamenlijk de praktijk uitvoert, verfijnt, herhaalt en R10 verandert (Geiger, 2009). In dit proces neemt men regelmatig een rustmoment waarin R11 betekenis wordt gegeven aan de praktijk alvorens deze weer verder te ontwikkelen. R12 Men stapt dan als het ware uit de routine om te reflecteren en betekenis te geven R13 aan wat er gebeurd en te bepalen hoe de praktijk aangescherpt kan worden tot een R14 verbeterde of nieuwe praktijk. Zoals gezegd, de aandacht voor praktijken laat zien R15 wat er daadwerkelijk gaande is in een project organisatie en duidt hoe medewerkers R16 betekenis geven aan de verscheidenheid van culturen en gebruiken in hun dagelijkse R17 werkomgeving. R18 In de wetenschappelijke discipline rondom cross-cultureel management vindt dit R19 onderzoek aansluiting bij de stroming die organisaties omschrijft als een veelvoud R20 van culturen. Vanuit dit perspectief vormen actoren gedeelde assumpties binnen R21 de organisatie, maar verkrijgen zij ook andere assumpties van buiten de organisatie R22 (Boyacigiller et al., 2004). In dit perspectief wordt cultuur niet als evenredig aan R23 nationaliteit toegekend, maar wordt het gezien als een bundel van impliciete en R24 expliciete assumpties die de percepties, gedachtes, gevoelens en het gedrag van R25 een groep mensen beïnvloedt omdat deze door interactie worden aangeleerd R26 en overgedragen (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). Wanneer mensen samen komen R27 in een project organisatie is hun afzonderlijke identiteit nog steeds geworteld R28 in de thuis organisatie, in hun beroep en in andere groepen waar men deel van R29 uit maakt (Sackmann & Friesl, 2007). Dat betekent dat in samenwerkingsrelaties, R30 waarbij verschillende culturen en werk praktijken elkaar ontmoeten, mensen R31 soms afstand moeten nemen van enkele traditionele gewoonten en gebruiken. Zij R32 interpreteren hun gewoonten en gebruiken en dienen deze wellicht aan te passen R33 R34

282 Dutch Summary

om samenwerking mogelijk te maken. De onderzoekers Huxham en Vangen (2004) R1 stellen dat samenwerking twee kanten uit kan gaan: het kan dusdanig tegenvallen R2 dat de uitkomst van samenwerking beneden de verwachting is, of het kan voordelen R3 opleveren die de partijen afzonderlijk van elkaar niet kunnen behalen. R4 In mega projecten is samenwerking onvermijdelijk: verschillende organisaties R5 moeten hun kennis, vaardigheden en ervaringen samenvoegen om het project R6 te realiseren. Iedere partij brengt haar eigen cultuur en werkpraktijken mee, haar R7 gevestigde ideeën en gewoontes, en haar specifieke belang en perspectief op R8 deelname aan het project. Desondanks zijn zij van elkaar afhankelijk. Met name in de R9 bouw sector zijn er voorbeelden te vinden van problemen in samenwerkingsverbanden R10 tussen organisaties. Na hevige kritiek op tegenvallende project resultaten, gebrek aan R11 integratie en een cultuur waarin de schuld wordt afgeschoven in plaats van naar een R12 oplossing wordt gezocht, is de bouwsector genoodzaakt om zich te concentreren R13 op een betere samenwerking (Dietrich et al., 2010; Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011; R14 Veenswijk & Berendse, 2008). Opvallend is echter dat, ondanks de moeilijkheden R15 van samenwerking en de grote culturele diversiteit, er weinig bekend is over de R16 bewuste en onbewuste gevolgen van deze kenmerken op het dagelijkse niveau van R17 project organisaties (Ainamo et al., 2010). Door gebruik te maken van het praktijk R18 concept en dus te kijken naar de dagelijkse gewoonten en gebruiken van actoren R19 heeft dit onderzoek als doel inzicht te geven in de interne dynamieken rondom de R20 culturele complexiteit. Daarnaast is het streven om een beter beeld te ontwikkelen R21 van samenwerkingsprocessen op het micro niveau van de project organisatie. R22 R23 Etnografie in de praktijk R24 De wetenschapsfilosofische basis voor dit onderzoek ligt in de sociaal constructivis- R25 tische ontologie en interpretatieve epistemologie. Dit perspectief berust op de R26 gedachte dat een sociale werkelijkheid wordt geconstrueerd in de interacties en R27 intersubjectieve interpretaties van mensen. Deze geconstrueerde werkelijkheid is R28 gevuld met zowel een culturele en historische context als met morele, openbare R29 en persoonlijke waarden waarbij de onderzoeker een actieve bijdrage levert aan R30 het proces van de sociale constructie (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012; Ybema et al., R31 2009). Dit in tegenstelling tot het positivisme, waarbij onderzoekers uitgaan van een R32 R33 R34

283 Dutch Summary

R1 sociale werkelijkheid die bestaat uit feiten welke de onderzoeker dient te achterhalen en categoriseren. Sociaal constructivisten proberen de sociale werkelijkheid te R3 begrijpen door inzicht te krijgen in hoe mensen betekenis geven aan hun sociale werkelijkheid, waarbij context een grote rol speelt. Een constructieve-interpretatieve R5 onderzoeksmethodologie, ook wel interpretatief onderzoek genoemd, sluit hierbij R6 aan (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). Het kernpunt van interpretatief onderzoek is R7 de rol van de onderzoeker: zij maakt deel uit van de dagelijkse praktijk. Het gaat er R8 om dat de onderzoeker kan observeren, vragen en ervaren wat de actor meemaakt R9 en dit middels haar eigen interpretaties beschrijft. R10 Gezien het gegeven dat dit onderzoek een beter beeld wil krijgen van de R11 dagelijkse praktijk in de project organisatie en benieuwd is naar hoe project R12 medewerkers betekenis geven aan de culturele complexiteit van hun werkomgeving, R13 sluit een etnografische methodologie goed aan. Geïnspireerd door antropologie, R14 wordt middels organisatie-etnografie een fenomeen binnen de organisatie van R15 dichtbij bestudeert. Dit betekent dat de onderzoeker het verschijnsel voor een R16 lange tijd bestudeerd, onderdeel wordt van wat mensen bezigt en hoe men over R17 deze bezigheid spreekt. Tevens is de onderzoeker sensitief voor hoe men betekenis R18 geeft aan deze activiteit en de context van de organisatie (Ybema et al., 2009). Juist R19 omdat de onderzoeker een belangrijke rol speelt in de interpretatie van de sociale R20 werkelijkheid, is reflexiviteit essentieel. Deze reflexiviteit uit zich in een gedetailleerde R21 en transparante beschrijving van hoe het onderzoek heeft plaats gevonden, van de R22 gemaakte keuzes en van de onderzoeker haar persoonlijke achtergrond en rol binnen R23 het onderzoek. Etnografisch onderzoek wordt gepresenteerd in een etnografie: een R24 sterk gedetailleerde beschrijving van het onderzoeksveld zodat de lezer het gevoel R25 krijgt aanwezig te zijn geweest (Bate, 1997). R26 Het uitbreidingsprogramma van het Panamakanaal werd als casus voor dit R27 onderzoek gekozen. Dit mega project voldeed aan de eisen voor deze studie: het ligt R28 buiten Nederland, op een locatie (Centraal Amerika) waar nog weinig mega projecten R29 onderzocht waren, de voertaal van het project was Engels en, nog belangrijker, ik R30 kreeg toegang tot dit project. Van juli 2009 tot juli 2010 was ik dagelijks aanwezig R31 in de project organisatie. Rijkswaterstaat bracht me in contact met ACP (Autoridad R32 del Canal de Panamá) en met hulp van de Nederlandse Ambassade in Panama leerde R33 R34

284 Dutch Summary

ik mensen binnen het consortium GUPC (Grupo Unidos por el Canal) kennen. Op R1 alle niveaus van de project organisatie kon ik observeren en interviews uitvoeren. R2 Ik sprak met medewerkers op de bouwplaats, opzichters, administratief personeel R3 en managers over hun ideeën, gevoelens, ervaringen en overtuigingen wat betreft R4 samenwerking in het project. Deze interviews hadden een open karakter waardoor R5 respondenten spontaan konden spreken over thema’s die hen aan het hart lagen. De R6 observaties vonden plaats in de project kantoren gelegen aan de Atlantische Oceaan R7 (in het dorp Gatún) en de Grote Oceaan (in Cocolí). Zowel bij ACP als bij GUPC R8 liep ik met voormannen, engineers en project managers mee om hun dagelijkse R9 bezigheden te observeren. Tevens was ik aanwezig bij vergaderingen, speciale R10 gelegenheden van de organisaties en kon ik tussendoor vrij rondlopen in de kantoren. R11 Ik noteerde wat er werd gezegd, maakte tekeningen van de kantoorinrichtingen R12 en beschreef waar mensen zaten. Ook hield ik een persoonlijk dagboek bij. Naast R13 de interviews en observaties verkreeg ik informatie over het mega project en haar R14 context via documenten. Zo verzamelde ik onder andere krantenartikelen, brochures, R15 presentaties, beleidsdocumenten, jaarrapporten, organigrammen, contracten, R16 wetenschappelijke onderzoeken, documenten van de aanbesteding, foto’s, kaarten R17 en video materiaal. Met behulp van het kwalitatieve data analyse programma Atlas. R18 ti analyseerde ik de onderzoeksgegevens en begon ik het schrijfproces. Ik begon R19 met de empirische hoofdstukken van dit boek, waarin uitgebreide beschrijvingen R20 van de praktijken van samenwerking die in het onderzoek naar voren kwamen R21 inzicht geven in de interne dynamieken binnen de project organisatie. Ik liet enkele R22 sleutelrespondenten mijn teksten lezen en vroeg hen om commentaar, voornamelijk R23 ter bevestiging, maar ook omdat ik hen inzicht wilde geven in de etnografische stijl R24 waarin de data wordt gepresenteerd. Tevens lazen mijn professoren, academische R25 collega’s en enkele project managers mijn teksten, presenteerde ik op verschillende R26 academische conferenties en publiceerde ik een artikel in een wetenschappelijk R27 tijdschrift (zie Smits & Van Marrewijk, 2012). R28 Zoals bij het nemen van een foto, kan een beeld vanuit verschillende perspectieven R29 geschetst worden. Het verhaal dat ik presenteer in dit proefschrift is gebaseerd op R30 mijn perspectief en interpretatie, vanuit hoe ik de situatie heb bekeken. Mijn culturele R31 achtergrond: Nederlandse vrouw, opgegroeid in een Westerse maatschappij, R32 R33 R34

285 Dutch Summary

R1 geschoold in (HBO) Personeelsmanagement en (WO) Cultuur, Organisatie en Management, en de opvoeding die ik heb genoten, zijn van invloed geweest op mijn R3 kijk op het onderzoeksveld. Enerzijds was ik regelmatig een vreemdeling in het veld, wat me hielp om bepaalde zaken op te merken, terwijl anderen deze als normaal R5 beschouwden. Anderzijds werd ik vriendelijk opgenomen in de project organisatie en R6 voelde ik me snel thuis in. Nadat ik het veldwerk had afgesloten bleef ik op de hoogte R7 van de ontwikkelingen in het mega project, hield ik contact met sleutelrespondenten, R8 en bezocht ik Panama nog enkele malen zodat ik onderzoeksdata en voorlopige R9 analyses kon verifiëren. R10 R11 Het Panamakanaal: een blik terug om vooruit te kijken R12 Grenzend aan Costa Rica en Colombia verbindt Panama Midden- en Zuid-Amerika. Al R13 sinds de ontdekking van het land zijn er ideeën over het bouwen van een binnenweg R14 door Midden Amerika die de Atlantisch Oceaan en de Grote Oceaan met elkaar R15 in verbinding brengt. In 1881, toen Panama nog een provincie van Colombia was, R16 startten de Fransen met de bouw van een kanaal op zeeniveau door Panama. Onder R17 leiding van de bekende Suez Kanaal ingenieur, Ferdinand de Lesseps, probeerde men R18 te vechten tegen overstromingen, landverschuivingen, corruptie en de aanhoudende R19 gele koorts en malaria epidemieën, maar dat ging mis en in 1889 het project kwam R20 ten einde (Greene, 2009; McCullough, 1977; Parker, 2009). De president van R21 Amerika, Theodore Roosevelt, kwam direct in actie. Overtuigd dat een kanaal van R22 immens belang was voor de ontwikkeling van Amerika, zowel economisch als ter R23 bescherming van de kustlijn, ondersteunde hij een staatsgreep waarmee Panama R24 onafhankelijk werd van Colombia. Er werd afgesproken dat Amerika de beschikking R25 kreeg over een gebied van tien mijl breed langs het kanaal, de Kanaal Zone, waarin R26 Amerika volledige soevereiniteit kon genieten. Als gevolg van de afspraken werd R27 Panama op drie manieren afhankelijk van Amerika. Ten eerste werd een tweeledig R28 betaal systeem ingevoerd waarbij Amerikanen betaald kregen in gouden munten, R29 terwijl Panamezen en andere kanaalbouwers in de minder waardevolle zilveren R30 munt werden betaald. Ten tweede werden Panamezen als lagere bevolkingsgroep R31 beschouwd en uitgesloten middels bordjes als “alleen blanken”. Ten derde zorgde R32 de acceptatie van de Amerikaanse dollar als legaal betaalmiddel ervoor dat Panama R33 R34

286 Dutch Summary

geen eigen financieel beleid kon voeren. Ergo, op papier was het kanaal van Panama R1 en onder controle van Amerika, maar in werkelijkheid werd de Kanaal Zone gezien R2 als een Amerikaanse staat waarin Amerikaanse weten regelgeving van kracht waren R3 (Harding, 2006). R4 Op 15 augustus 1914 werd het Panamakanaal officieel geopend. Het project had R5 tien jaar geduurd, had mensen uit de hele wereld aangetrokken en werd zes maanden R6 eerder opgeleverd tegen een kostprijs die USD$ 23.000.000,- onder de geschatte R7 prijs lag (McCullough, 1977). Na de opening bleef het Panamakanaal, tot frustratie R8 van de Panamezen, in handen van de Amerikanen. Jarenlang waren er discussies over R9 wie het kanaal in beheer zou moeten hebben, maar pas in 1977 ondertekenden de R10 Panamese president Omar Torrijos en de Amerikaanse president Jimmy Carter nieuwe R11 afspraken over het Panamakanaal. Er werd besloten om de waterweg geleidelijk over R12 te dragen aan Panama en vanaf 31 december 1999 is Panama officieel eigenaar van R13 het Panamakanaal. Sindsdien is ACP volledig verantwoordelijk voor de uitvoering, R14 het beheer, het management, het onderhoud, de beveiliging en verbeteringen van R15 het kanaal. R16 Vandaag de dag opereert het Panamakanaal nog zoals het ruim negentig jaar R17 geleden werd opgeleverd. Een overtocht van de Atlantische Oceaan naar de Grote R18 Oceaan duurt zo’n acht tot tien uur. Met behulp van sluizen worden schepen naar het R19 zesentwintig meter hoge kanaal getild. Een schip met de maximale afmetingen van R20 294,1 meter lang, 32,3 meter breed en 12,04 meter diepte wordt Panamax genoemd. R21 Schepen van een groter format, Postpanamax genaamd, kunnen de waterweg niet R22 oversteken, zij moeten -nu nog- de alternatieve route via het zuidelijkste punt van R23 Zuid-Amerika, bij Kaap Hoorn in Chili, varen. In 2009 passeerden per dag ruim veertig R24 schepen het Panamakanaal. Gemiddeld betaalden containerschepen US$ 300.000,- R25 om de oversteek van de Atlantische Oceaan naar de Grote Oceaan te maken. Met R26 name om de capaciteit van de waterweg te vergroten, maar ook om competitief te R27 blijven in de maritieme wereld introduceerde ACP in 2006 het uitbreidingsplan voor R28 het Panamakanaal welke middels een referendum toestemming kreeg om uitgevoerd R29 te worden. R30 Het complete uitbreidingsprogramma is verdeeld in vier onderdelen. Deel 1 beslaat R31 het ontwerp en de bouw van een nieuwe set sluizen. Deel 2 omvat de grondverzet R32 R33 R34

287 Dutch Summary

R1 werkzaamheden die nodig zijn om plaats te maken voor de nieuwe sluizen en de nieuwe aanvoerroute. Het derde deel richt zich op de baggerwerkzaamheden die R3 nodig zijn om het kanaal te verbreden en verdiepen. Deel 4 van het programma heeft als doel om de water toevoer naar het kanaal te verbeteren, want om meer R5 sluizen in gebruik te kunnen nemen is meer water nodig. Binnen dit onderzoek ligt R6 de nadruk op het eerste deel van het programma, het meest prestigieuze onderdeel R7 van het mega project: het Third Set of Locks Project. Dit project, dat geschat is op R8 US$ 3.2 miljard is het duurste project binnen het gehele uitbereidingsprogramma, R9 welke een berekende totaalprijs heeft van US$ 5.2 miljard. Ter ondersteuning van de R10 project management taken heeft ACP het Amerikaanse adviesbureau CH2M Hill in R11 de arm geslagen. Na een aanbestedingsprocedure besloten ACP en CH2M Hill om R12 het consortium GUPC in te huren voor de uitvoering van dit deel van het project. R13 GUPC wordt gevormd door de bedrijven Sacyr uit Spanje, Impregilo uit Italië, Jan de R14 Nul uit België en CUSA uit Panama. R15 R16 Tussenspel: de weg naar samenwerking R17 Op 8 juli 2009 wordt tijdens een spannende ceremonie bekend gemaakt welk R18 consortium de aanbesteding voor het ontwerpen en bouwen van de nieuwe sluizen R19 in het Panamakanaal heeft gewonnen. ACP kondigde aan dat GUPC de meeste R20 punten heeft gehaald voor het technische voorstel. Dat is belangrijk, maar omdat dit R21 puntenaantal slechts iets groter was dan wat de andere partijen behaalden, speelde R22 ook het prijsvoorstel van iedere partij een grote rol. ACP maakte bekend dat GUPC R23 de laagste prijs voor het project heeft geboden: US$ 3.118.880.001,- en daarmee R24 het aanbestedingsproces wint. Tijdens de ceremonie komt GUPC er echter achter R25 dat ACP een hoger bedrag had gereserveerd voor de uitvoer van het project, wat R26 een bittere nasmaak geeft. Het gevoel dat er te laag geboden is bekruipt de project R27 partijen van GUPC. Discussies over hoe kosten en winst onderling verdeeld moeten R28 worden voerden de toon. Ook waren er moeilijkheden rondom de overgang van R29 de aanbestedingsfase naar de uitvoeringsfase. Kortom, de samenwerking tussen de R30 partijen binnen GUPC kwam onder grote druk te staan. R31 R32 R33 R34

288 Dutch Summary

Praktijken binnen de GUPC project organisatie: samenwerking verhinderen R1 In dit eerste empirische hoofdstuk laat ik zien hoe samenwerking tot uiting R2 kwam tussen de project medewerkers van GUPC. Verschillende praktijken van R3 samenwerking tonen aan hoe actoren betekenis gaven aan en omgingen met de R4 culturele complexiteit in hun dagelijkse werkzaamheden. Medewerkers gebruikten R5 metaforen om de organisatie en de interne dynamieken binnen de projectorganisatie R6 te beschrijven. De metaforen die naar voren kwamen zijn: ‘oorlog’, ‘gearrangeerd R7 huwelijk’, ‘bergbeklimmen’, dieren en ‘overheidsinstelling’. Deze werden gebruikt R8 om te reflecteren op de situatie in de project organisatie en hielpen project R9 medewerkers om elkaar te begrijpen in het samenwerkingsproces. Het gebruik van R10 metaforen illustreert de gedachten, gevoelens, interacties en ervaringen van project R11 medewerkers en toont tevens aan hoe cross-culturele samenwerking in de project R12 organisatie vorm kreeg. R13 Om de complexiteit van de project organisatie te vereenvoudigen, maar ook R14 om te kunnen identificeren en standaardiseren, maakten actoren gebruik van R15 culturele etiketten. Het nationaal cultuur etiket werd gebruikt om mensen te duiden R16 op basis van nationaliteit en stereotyperingen die kenmerkend zijn voor een land. R17 Wat opvalt is dat naast het gebruik van de etiketten ‘Spanjaarden’, ‘Italianen’, R18 ‘Belgen’ en ‘Panamezen’ er twee etiketten ontstonden die deze groepen nog R19 verder simplificeerden. Gebaseerd op de locaties van de hoofdkantoren van de thuis R20 organisaties in Europa verdeelden de etiketten ‘zuiderlingen’ en ‘noorderlingen’ R21 de medewerkers binnen GUPC in slechts twee culturele groepen. Opmerkelijk is R22 dat deze etiketten slechts in bepaalde situaties werden toegepast. Wanneer men R23 sprak over werkhouding dan werden Spanjaarden en Italianen niet onder hetzelfde R24 etiket geschaard, want wat dit thema betreft zag men een duidelijk verschil tussen R25 beide culturen. Het nationaal cultuur etiket was diep geworteld in de dagelijkse R26 gesprekken en praktijken binnen de project organisatie. Regelmatig ging het hierbij R27 om het creëren van afstand tussen medewerkers in plaats van het versterken van R28 de samenwerking. Het organisatie cultuur etiket had hetzelfde effect. Dit etiket, R29 gebaseerd op een algemeen beeld dat actoren hadden over de thuis organisaties R30 en de daarbij behorende culturele waarden en praktijken, voedde de subjectieve R31 interpretaties van medewerkers over de groepen binnen GUPC. Het gebruik van R32 metaforen en etiketten laat zien dat project medewerkers op zoek waren naar R33 R34

289 Dutch Summary

R1 een manier om de complexiteit van de organisatie te begrijpen, men zocht naar overeenkomsten en gemeenschappelijke interesse. Echter, op de werkvloer beletten R3 deze praktijken het proces van samenwerking. Ook de ruimtelijke indeling van het project had invloed op de samenwerking R5 binnen GUPC. Het projectkantoor aan de Atlantische Oceaan werd voornamelijk R6 gerund door medewerkers van Sacyr, terwijl het projectkantoor aan de Grote R7 Oceaan door Impregilo medewerkers werd geleid. In de dagelijkse omgang werd R8 steevast verschil gemaakt tussen de twee locaties, waardoor er weinig aansluiting R9 tussen de twee projectkantoren was. Naast de projectkantoren was er ook het GUPC R10 hoofdkantoor, gelegen in Corozal Oeste, vlakbij Panama Stad. Project medewerkers R11 identificeerden zich sterk met de locatie waar ze werkten, en markeerden grenzen R12 tussen de drie locaties van het project. Ze voelden zich afgezonderd van het R13 hoofdkantoor, maar onderscheidden zich ook sterk van de andere project locaties. R14 Verder blijkt uit observaties in de project organisatie dat medewerkers behoefte R15 hadden aan een duidelijke structuur. Er bleek geen eenduidige organisatie diagram R16 te zijn, waardoor een helder inzicht in de formele relaties binnen GUPC ontbrak. Het R17 resultaat van de ruimtelijke indeling van de project organisatie en het gebrek aan een R18 heldere organisatie structuur was dat medewerkers zich vast hielden aan traditionele R19 gewoontes en gebruiken. R20 De uitkomsten van de praktijken genoemd in dit hoofdstuk laat een differentiatie, R21 segregatie en fragmentatie zien tussen de project medewerkers. Aangezien actoren R22 voornamelijk aandacht besteedden aan onderlinge verschillen en grenzen werd de R23 emotionele afstand vergroot; er ontstond een ‘kanaal’ tussen hen. De praktijken R24 genoemd in dit hoofdstuk noem ik daarom ‘verhinderaars van samenwerking’. R25 R26 Samenwerking binnen GUPC: versterkende praktijken R27 In navolging op het vorige hoofdstuk presenteer ik in dit hoofdstuk praktijken van R28 samenwerking die de project medewerkers uitvoerden, vormden en ontwikkelden R29 ten behoeve van een samenwerkingsrelatie in de project organisatie. Ondanks de R30 moeilijkheden binnen GUPC zagen project medewerkers dat het aanpassen aan R31 elkaar en het delen van kennis met elkaar noodzakelijk was om vooruitgang in het R32 project te realiseren. R33 R34

290 Dutch Summary

Zo vond men elkaar op basis van gedeelde interesses. De passie die men voor R1 het vak heeft bracht project medewerkers bij elkaar. Men sprak over andere mega R2 projecten waaraan men had gewerkt, over opleidingen die men had genoten en R3 over de passie die ze deelden. Men sprak dezelfde taal. Binnen de project organisatie R4 werd tevens de mantra ‘het werk moet gedaan worden’ gedeeld. Deze mantra was R5 dagelijks op de werkvloer van GUPC te horen en vertegenwoordigde een pragmatische R6 werkhouding van project medewerkers die gedreven waren om het project af te R7 ronden. De gedeelde interesses en deze mantra hielpen project medewerkers om een R8 relatie op te bouwen en tot samenwerking te komen. R9 Enkele maanden na de start van de uitvoeringsfase kondigden ‘bruggenbouwers’ R10 zich aan: mensen met een neutrale positie in de project organisatie begonnen R11 als tussenpersoon te fungeren. In eerste instantie waren zij ingehuurd voor hun R12 specifieke kennis en ervaring, in voornamelijk Amerikaanse mega projecten, maar zij R13 ontplooiden zich tevens als belangrijke personen die een brug konden slaan tussen R14 de verschillende project medewerkers. Deze bruggenbouwers bleken essentieel in R15 het samenwerkingsproces binnen GUPC. Zij traden op als vertalers, deelden hun R16 kennis en ervaringen, en waren, omdat ze geen relatie hadden met een van de thuis R17 organisaties, onpartijdig in conflicten. Juist omdat deze personen minder verbonden R18 waren met GUPC konden zij vrijer en flexibeler opereren, en gaven zij tevens een R19 andere kijk op de alledaagse project situatie. R20 In interacties tussen project medewerkers begon men zich aan te passen aan R21 de ander. Actoren veranderden hun taal of gedrag om op deze manier samen R22 een beter resultaat te bereiken. Men leerde de taal van de ander kennen, door R23 Spaanse of Engelse les te nemen, waardoor het taalverschil kleiner werd en de R24 interactie en samenwerking verbeterden. Ook pasten mensen hun werkhouding R25 aan en veranderden zij enkele praktijken binnen hun werk. Binnen GUPC paste een R26 andere werkhouding beter en door praktijken aan te passen werd de onderlinge R27 samenwerking sterker. Verder werden er ook nieuwe praktijken ontwikkeld, waar R28 een technische bibliotheek speciaal voor de leden van de project organisatie een R29 voorbeeld van is. R30 Tot slot werd er ook op een informeel niveau gewerkt aan de samenwerking R31 tussen project medewerkers. Actoren hadden de behoefte om elkaar beter te leren R32 R33 R34

291 Dutch Summary

R1 kennen, om de verschillende culturele achtergronden te mengen en om tijd met elkaar door te brengen. Er werden daarom, vanaf de werkvloer, verschillende sociale R3 activiteiten georganiseerd. Deze activiteiten stimuleerden medewerkers niet alleen om meer dan alleen het dagelijkse werk met elkaar te delen, er ontstonden ook R5 vriendschappen binnen GUPC. Project medewerkers hebben kennelijk een natuurlijke R6 drijfveer om samen te werken en zijn bereidwillig om een samenwerkingsrelatie op R7 te bouwen. R8 De praktijken die in dit hoofdstuk worden gepresenteerd delen het doel om R9 samenwerking binnen de project organisatie te verbeteren en noem ik daarom R10 ‘versterkers van samenwerking’. Project medewerkers integreerden en waren R11 betrokken. Dit betekent dat, ondanks de venijnige situatie in de dagelijkse werk R12 omgeving, er een onderliggende behoefte was tot samenwerken die de medewerkers R13 met elkaar verbond. R14 R15 Chaperonneren: samenwerking tussen ACP en CH2M Hill R16 Aangezien ACP nooit eerder een mega project ter grootte van het R17 uitbreidingsprogramma van het Panamakanaal had uitgevoerd, werd besloten hulp R18 van een ervaren adviesbureau in te schakelen. Het gerenommeerde Amerikaanse R19 kantoor CH2M Hill won de aanbesteding voor project management in het mega R20 project. Echter, al snel bleek dat beide partijen verschillende ideeën hadden over hoe R21 deze samenwerking vorm moest krijgen. R22 ACP beschreef in de aanbestedingsdocumenten dat het op zoek was naar R23 een partij die de organisatie kon ondersteunen en adviseren bij de uitvoering van R24 de project management taken. De externe partij zou het project niet autonoom R25 uitvoeren, maar juist samenwerken met de medewerkers van ACP om hen het vak R26 te leren. ACP had een intensieve samenwerkingsrelatie voor ogen waarbij de rol van R27 het adviesbureau lag in het trainen, adviseren en sturen van de ACP medewerkers. R28 Anderzijds, CH2M Hill medewerkers veronderstelden een standaard uitvoering van R29 een project management opdracht. Zij dachten de controle en leiding van het project R30 over te nemen, om de dagelijkse procedures en processen binnen het project te R31 begeleiden en afgerekend te worden op het project resultaat. Het contract met ACP R32 vroeg om een ander soort gedrag, anders dan wat de adviseurs gewend waren. R33 R34

292 Dutch Summary

ACP beschreef nauwkeurig hoe ze de samenwerking met de adviseurs voor ogen R1 hadden. Ik noem deze manier van samenwerking ‘chaperonneren’. Een chaperonne R2 begeleidt en beschermt een nieuweling, leert de nieuwkomer de gewoonten en R3 gebruiken, deelt ervaringen en geeft advies over hoe zich te gedragen. ACP ontwierp R4 een nieuwe manier van samenwerking waarbij medewerkers nauw betrokken waren R5 bij de dagelijkse werkzaamheden in het mega project. Op sleutelposities werden R6 twee mensen geplaatst: een ACP medewerker en een CH2M Hill adviseur. Voor de R7 CH2M Hill adviseurs was deze vorm van samenwerking nieuw. Normaliter hebben R8 zij de vrijheid om een project uit te voeren, om besluiten te nemen en worden zij R9 verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de uitkomst van een project. In dit project was dat R10 anders. Officieel hield ACP alle autoriteit en verantwoordelijkheid, terwijl CH2M Hill, R11 in de rol van chaperonne, het werk van ACP medewerkers overzag, hen praktijken R12 van project management aanleerden en het tijdsplan en budget in de gaten hield. R13 Deze vorm van samenwerking was voor ACP medewerkers niet geheel nieuw. Al in R14 het aanbestedingsproces had ACP de intentie uitgesproken op deze manier te willen R15 werken, namelijk op dezelfde wijze als hoe het kanaal destijds was overgedragen aan R16 Panama. Ook toen werkten Amerikanen en Panamezen zij aan zij om kennis te delen. R17 De ervaringen met het chaperonneren liepen ver uiteen. CH2M Hill medewerkers R18 voelden zich voornamelijk ongemakkelijk in rol van begeleider omdat ze nooit eerder R19 op deze manier een project hadden uitgevoerd. Binnen ACP waren er gemengde R20 gevoelens over de aanwezigheid van de adviseurs. Sommige medewerkers zagen R21 het nut niet in van een adviseur aan hun zijde, terwijl anderen blij waren dat de R22 Amerikanen aanwezig waren. Verder bleken de fundamentele verschillen tussen ACP R23 en CH2M Hill het samenwerken te belemmeren. ACP is een publieke organisatie R24 en CH2M Hill een private onderneming, wat resulteerde in uiteenlopende normen R25 en waarden tussen deze organisaties. Desalniettemin besloten beide partijen om de R26 samenwerking voort te zetten. R27 Om de samenwerking te stimuleren werd de slagzin ‘één team, één missie’ nieuw R28 leven ingeblazen. Deze slagzin komt uit de tijd waarin het kanaal werd overgedragen R29 aan Panama en was destijds bedoeld om een soepele samenwerking te creëren. R30 Twee persoonlijke verhalen van medewerkers in de project organisatie laten zien R31 hoe deze samenwerking zich openbaarde. Ook beschrijf ik, ter illustratie van het R32 R33 R34

293 Dutch Summary

R1 concept chaperonneren, een vergadering waarbij ACP medewerkers en CH2M Hill consultants deelnemen. Deze voorbeelden geven aan dat samenwerken lastiger was R3 dan deze slagzin deed suggereren. Het hoofdstuk laat zien dat verschillende interpretaties van samenwerking kunnen R5 leiden tot conflicten en een machtsstrijd tussen de partijen. In dit project vonden ACP R6 en CH2M Hill langzaamaan een manier om de samenwerking vorm te geven: ACP R7 medewerkers namen de interne, politieke taken binnen de organisatie op zich, terwijl R8 de adviseurs zich op de technische zaken richtten en de leiding namen in de project R9 kantoren. Tevens toont dit hoofdstuk aan dat hoewel een contract beschrijft welke R10 verwachtingen er zijn wat betreft samenwerking, de gebruikelijke praktijken zijn diep R11 geworteld in de dagelijkse werkzaamheden van project medewerkers. R12 R13 Cross-Cultureel Werk in het uitbreidingsprogramma van het Panamakanaal: R14 een collabyrinth R15 In het concluderende hoofdstuk van dit proefschrift analyseer ik de bevindingen van R16 het onderzoek en geef ik antwoord op de onderzoeksvragen. Dat samenwerking R17 een essentieel thema is in de uitvoering van een mega project kwam in deze R18 studie duidelijk naar voren. De project organisatie, bestaande uit een doolhof van R19 verschillende (nationale, organisatie en professionele) culturen, identiteiten en R20 praktijken, en gecombineerd met diverse belangen en interesses voor deelname, R21 vormt een complexe werkomgeving. In dit ingewikkelde netwerk van interacties R22 is samenwerking een vereiste. Samenwerken is zo lastig, dat de onderzoekers R23 Huxham en Vangen (2004) stellen dat men samenwerking beter kan vermijden. R24 In de uitvoering van een mega project kan dat niet. In dit proces is samenwerking R25 onvermijdelijk. Alleen kan een organisatie een project van deze orde niet uitvoeren R26 en vaak is specifieke kennis vereist waardoor samenwerking met andere partijen R27 noodzakelijk is. R28 Binnen het uitbreidingsprogramma van het Panamakanaal hebben we gezien R29 dat, in het proces van samenwerken, project medewerkers reflecteerden op hun R30 praktijken en deze aanpasten om hun weg te vinden in de project organisatie. Terwijl R31 zij betekenis gaven aan de complexiteit van de dagelijkse gang van zaken vertaalden R32 zij deze naar meer eenvoudige en begrijpelijke vormen. Ongeacht de institutionele R33 R34

294 Dutch Summary

verschillen tussen de organisaties of de conventionele waarden en praktijken, project R1 medewerkers hadden de behoefte om een samenwerkingsrelatie op te bouwen. R2 Samenhorigheid en persoonlijke betrokkenheid stimuleerden de actoren om een R3 samenwerkingsrelatie tot stand te brengen. Door te reflecteren op hun gewoonten R4 en gebruiken en deze aan te passen, ook wel reflectie-in-actie genoemd (Yanow & R5 Tsoukas, 2009), of door nieuwe praktijken te ontwikkelen, kon samenwerking van R6 de grond komen. Ik stel dat het ontwikkelen van een samenwerkingsverband gezien R7 kan worden als een ‘collabyrinth’. Deze combinatie van collaboration en labyrint R8 weerspiegelt namelijk de complexiteit van samenwerking. R9 Er kwamen verschillende praktijken van samenwerking naar voren welke laten zien R10 hoe actoren betekenis geven aan en omgaan met de complexiteit van hun dagelijkse R11 werkomgeving. Deze praktijken, zoals getoond in de empirische hoofdstukken, R12 kunnen verdeeld worden in zichtbare praktijken en verborgen praktijken. De R13 zichtbare praktijken zijn acties en activiteiten die bij bestudering van praktijken direct R14 naar voren kwamen (Gherardi, 2009; Nicolini et al., 2003b; Orlikowski, 2010). In R15 het collabyrinth zijn drie zichtbare praktijken vertoond. De eerste is ‘conflicterende R16 omstandigheden’. Dit verwijst naar de conflicten binnen de samenwerking in het R17 project en laat zien dat conflicten dwongen tot reflectie waardoor actoren zich bewust R18 werden van zichzelf en de situatie. De tweede zichtbare praktijk is ‘overeenstemming R19 zoeken’, dat refereert naar de overeenkomsten die men zocht om te kunnen R20 samenwerken. De behoefte om samen te werken en de bereidwilligheid van project R21 medewerkers om een relatie op te bouwen komt tot uiting in de derde zichtbare R22 praktijk, ‘vriendschappelijke relaties bouwen’. De verborgen praktijken waren niet R23 direct te observeren, maar lagen onder de oppervlakte, waren impliciet en lastiger R24 te omschrijven (Corradi et al., 2010; Gherardi, 2009). De eerste verborgen praktijk is R25 ‘duikboot gedrag’. Figuurlijk bedoeld, refereert deze praktijk naar het gedrag waarbij R26 project medewerkers autonoom opereren, zonder rekening te houden met andere R27 deelnemers in het project. ‘Verhalen vertellen’ is de tweede verborgen praktijk. Hierbij R28 gaat het om de verhalen die in het project de ronde doen en medewerkers met elkaar R29 verbinden. De laatste verborgen praktijk is ‘synergie bereiken’, waarbij actoren open R30 staan om van elkaar te leren en zich aanpassen om een samenwerkingsrelatie te R31 realiseren. R32 R33 R34

295 Dutch Summary

R1 In de conclusie van het onderzoek til ik de praktijken van samenwerking naar een abstract niveau en verbind ik ze aan een lijn van samenwerking. Deze lijn, het R3 Collaboration Continuum, laat de invloed van de praktijk op de samenwerking zien. Hoewel ik niet de intentie heb om de bevindingen van het onderzoek te combineren R5 aan de uitkomsten van het project, introduceer ik wel een manier om de relatie tussen R6 praktijken van samenwerking en de ontwikkeling van samenwerking te laten zien. R7 Op het continuüm zijn de praktijken van samenwerking verdeeld in drie categorieën: R8 (A) tegenwerkende praktijken, (B) opbouwende praktijken en (C) verbindende R9 praktijken. De eerste categorie omvat alle praktijken die samenwerking belemmeren, R10 in de tweede categorie komen de praktijken aan bod die proberen samenwerking R11 tot stand te brengen en de derde categorie duidt de praktijken die daadwerkelijk een R12 samenwerking verwezenlijken. Het continuüm bewijst dat aandacht voor praktijken R13 in project management essentieel is om beter te begrijpen hoe actoren betekenis R14 geven aan cross-culturele samenwerking en te weten wat zij doen, hoe zij dat doen R15 en onder welke omstandigheden zij hun praktijken uitvoeren. R16 Om meer inzicht te krijgen in sociale fenomenen in project management, adviseer R17 ik onderzoekers om etnografische onderzoeksmethoden te gebruiken. Een betere R18 kijk op wat er dagelijks gebeurd in een project organisatie biedt inzicht in hoe project R19 medewerkers betekenis geven aan de dagelijkse werkomgeving. Middels specifieke R20 aandacht voor praktijken leren we wat het is dat mensen doen in project management. R21 Bovendien is het, om meer te weten te komen over cross-culturele samenwerking in R22 project management, van belang om onderzoeken naar samenwerking in andere R23 projecten te initiëren. Verder zou onderzoek naar discoursen, rituelen of symbolen, R24 en een combinatie tussen kwalitatief en kwantitatief onderzoek onze kennis over de R25 ‘mens’-kant van project management kunnen vergroten. R26 Ter afsluiting van dit onderzoek presenteer ik vijf aanbevelingen voor mensen R27 werkzaam in de praktijk van projecten en project management. De eerste aanbeveling R28 is het leren kennen van de partij met wie een samenwerking eventueel wordt R29 aangegaan. Al voordat een contract getekend is kan getest worden of samenwerken R30 daadwerkelijk vruchtbaar kan zijn. Een expert kan een scan maken van de organisatie, R31 haar cultuur, de essentiële waarden en werkpraktijken, maar ook van de voornemens R32 en verwachtingen voor project deelname. Een helder inzicht in iedere organisatie, R33 R34

296 Dutch Summary

en haar karakteristieken, geeft informatie over de verschillen en overeenkomsten R1 tussen de partijen en biedt ondersteuning in een gesprek over deze thema’s. Het R2 vroegtijdig identificeren van de kenmerken van iedere partij verkleind het risico dat R3 deze later voor problemen zorgen. Daarnaast is het van belang om ook tijdens een R4 samenwerkingsverband regelmatig te reflecteren en dit proces veelvuldig te voeden R5 met activiteiten die de samenwerking blijven stimuleren. R6 Een tweede aanbeveling is om bewustwording te creëren voor de talrijke R7 mogelijkheden van een cross-culturele samenwerking. De verscheidenheid van R8 culturele verschillen en overeenkomsten verrijkt de project medewerkers met nieuwe R9 kansen en uitdagingen. Zulke mogelijkheden kan men vinden in het combineren R10 van kennis en vaardigheden, in het verkennen van nieuwe manieren van werken en R11 in het verkrijgen van inzicht in welke aspecten verdere ontwikkeling behoeven. Een R12 groter bewustzijn van de culturele diversiteit, de verschillende belangen voor project R13 deelname en andere manieren van werken bieden een overvloed aan mogelijkheden R14 die de uitkomst van samenwerking verbetert. R15 De derde aanbeveling is geduldig te blijven wanneer er onenigheid en frustratie R16 ontstaat bij project deelnemers. Conflicten zijn onvermijdelijk en soms juist R17 noodzakelijk om de samenwerking te versterken. Mits goed begeleidt, bevorderen R18 conflicten openheid en stimuleren zij mensen om de onderliggende spanningen te R19 uiten. Alleen wanneer conflicten verzanden in emoties en leiden tot wantrouwen, R20 verhinderen zij de samenwerking. Echter, conflicten versterken de samenwerking R21 wanneer men de ruimte krijgt ideeën, perspectieven en verwachtingen uit te spreken. R22 Het is daarom mijn advies om conflicten te aanvaren als een natuurlijk onderdeel van R23 samenwerking en deze in te zetten om praktijken aan te passen of nieuwe praktijken R24 te ontwikkelen. Op deze manier kan een conflict fungeren als de start van een R25 veranderingsproces. R26 De vierde aanbeveling verwijst naar het introduceren van een project filosofie. R27 Een verhaal dat het doel van het project weergeeft, vergroot de betrokkenheid en R28 versterkt een samenwerkingsrelatie. Een filosofie dient een compleet beeld te geven R29 van het project zodat het als leidraad kan dienen bij de uitvoering van het project en R30 vertaald kan worden naar de dagelijkse bezigheden van project medewerkers. Het R31 vormen van een project filosofie kan men niet alleen, hulp van de project partijen en R32 R33 R34

297 Dutch Summary

R1 andere belanghebbenden is noodzakelijk. Dit is een gespecialiseerde en tijdrovende taak. Het is daarom raadzaam om het formuleren van een filosofie over te laten R3 aan een deskundige. Ter ontwikkeling van een project filosofie kunnen elementen zoals een logo, een project taal, en gedeelde normen en waarden ingevoerd worden R5 om medewerkers te motiveren en betrokkenheid te creëren. Uiteindelijk kan deze R6 interventie leiden tot een nieuwe identiteit voor project medewerkers. R7 De vijfde en tevens laatste aanbeveling is samenwerking serieuze aandacht en R8 intensive ondersteuning te geven. Promotie van samenwerking binnen de project R9 organisatie is noodzakelijk. Praktijken van samenwerking kunnen benoemd worden R10 en tevens gebruikt worden in het stimuleren van samenwerking: verhinderaars R11 kunnen verkleind worden terwijl versterkers juist extra aandacht mogen genieten. R12 Bovendien, wanneer nieuw gedrag in de samenwerkingsrelatie wordt vereist, dienen R13 project medewerkers getraind en gestuurd te worden in de nieuwe werkzaamheden R14 en gedragingen. Project medewerkers worden geacht kritisch te blijven naar het R15 thema samenwerking en, wetende hoe moeilijk samenwerking is, geadviseerd elkaar R16 goed te bestuderen voordat men het avontuur van samenwerken aangaat. R17 Deze vijf aanbevelingen reflecteren mijn advies om samenwerking in project R18 organisaties te stimuleren. Zij benadrukken het belang van een cultureel perspectief R19 op project management en laten zien dat expliciete aandacht voor cross-culturele R20 samenwerking noodzakelijk is. Na het lezen van dit onderzoek is men het wellicht R21 met me eens dat cultuur en samenwerking hoog op de project management agenda R22 dienen te prijken. R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

298 Spanish Summary

Spanish Summary R1 Trabajo Intercultural: R2 Prácticas de Colaboración en la Ampliación del Canal de Panamá R3 R4 Introducción en el campo de la investigación R5 Los megaproyectos forman una parte omnipresente de nuestra vida cotidiana, R6 sirviendo como hitos en el desarrollo de la humanidad, triunfos nacionales y avances R7 técnicos. Entre el túnel del canal que conecta el Reino Unido y Francia, el edificio del R8 Empire State que una vez fue el edificio más alto del mundo y los Delta Works en R9 Holanda que fueron construidos para proteger el país de las inundaciones, la sociedad R10 americana de ingenieros civiles (American Society of Civil Engineers) enumera R11 el canal de Panamá como una de las sietes maravillas del mundo moderno40. Los R12 procesos de la construcción de megaproyectos experimentan una gran cantidad de R13 problemas con respecto a la realización en tiempo, en presupuesto y en el alcance. R14 Frecuentemente, estos proyectos no cumplen con las expectativas porque se sufren R15 sobrecostos, retrasos y déficit en la calidad y la satisfacción de los usuarios (Cicmil & R16 Hodgson, 2006; Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). R17 Los resultados problemáticos de los proyectos en la infraestructura han atraído R18 la atención académica. Aunque principalmente estos estudios se centran en temas R19 como la creación de políticas, la contratación, los resultados esperados, los riesgos R20 y los rendimientos, los académicos y los practicantes sienten que hay una necesidad R21 por una visión más clara sobre la parte “humana” de la gestión de proyectos (Cooke- R22 Davies, 2002; Van Marrewijk et al., 2008). Debido a que hay varias partes implicadas R23 en el proceso de la construcción, cada quien con su propio conocimiento, experiencia R24 y especialidad, podemos ver los megaproyectos como complejos entornos sociales. R25 Después de todo, cada parte trae sus propias prácticas de trabajo y valores culturales R26 arraigados en su organización. Por lo tanto, la organización del proyecto esta R27 coloreada por las numerosas diferencias y similitudes culturales, por las prácticas y R28 costumbres específicas y por los diversos motivos para participar en el proyecto. En R29 este entorno complejo, se considera la colaboración como un factor critico para el R30 éxito de los resultados del proyecto (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Cooke-Davies, 2002; R31 Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). R32 R33 40 American Society of Civil Engineers, www.asce.org (visitado por la última vez, October 8, 2012). R34

299 Spanish Summary

R1 La cultura desempeña una parte muy importante en las relaciones de colaboración. La idea de que la cultura puede ser equiparada con la nacionalidad ha influenciado los R3 estudios sobre la gestión intercultural por mucho tiempo (e.g. Hofstede, 1980). Por lo pronto, en este campo de investigación, un cambio hacia una perspectiva que se R5 interesa menos en la comparación de los aspectos culturales, pero que esta enfocada R6 en la interacción entre las culturas, la influencia de la cultura en una organización y R7 como la gente enfrenta la complejidad cultural de la organización, ya ha sucedido R8 (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). Las personas en las organizaciones están constantemente R9 activas para interpretar y ajustar sus valores, costumbres e intereses. También les dan R10 su propia interpretación a los debates sociales y declaraciones abstractas acerca de R11 los valores públicos que prevalecen en la sociedad. La eficiencia, la transparencia y R12 la seguridad, por ejemplo, son términos abstractos que reciben significación en la R13 ejecución de un mega proyecto. El debate académico sobre la garantía de los valores R14 públicos se ha centrado principalmente en la implementación de arriba hacia abajo, R15 mientras también es interesante ver cómo estos valores públicos son interpretados R16 y adaptados en el proceso de colaboración, cuando una gran cantidad de culturas, R17 motivos y expectativas se unen. A través de poner atención especifica a las acciones R18 y interacciones del personal del proyecto en el nivel micro de la organización, esta R19 investigación se centra en las prácticas de colaboración. En otras palabras, que hace R20 la gente cuando trabajan juntos en un entorno complejo cultural? Esto me lleva al R21 tema central de esta investigación. R22 En esta investigación trato de revelar cómo la colaboración se refleja en la práctica R23 diaria de los participantes del proyecto en el programa de la ampliación del Canal de R24 Panamá. Se enfoca en la comprensión de la complejidad cultural de la colaboración y R25 en describir cómo la colaboración está creada entre los empleados del mega proyecto. R26 Un principio básico con esta enfoque es estudiar cómo ellos interpretan y adaptan los R27 valores (públicos), las costumbres y los intereses para entender cómo los actores dan R28 sentido a las diferencias y similitudes culturales en su entorno de trabajo. R29 El gran impacto que los megaproyectos tienen en la sociedad y también el hecho R30 de que los estudios anteriores han demostrado que las diferencias culturales son una R31 de las causas por la decepción de los proyectos (e.g. Bresnen & Marshall, 2002; Van R32 Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006) son un estímulo para conocer la dinámica interna del R33 R34

300 Spanish Summary

megaproyecto de la ampliación del Canal de Panamá. Por eso, esta investigación R1 responde a la demanda (académica) por estudios empíricos en megaproyectos y R2 contribuye al conocimiento sobre los asuntos cotidianos de las organizaciones de R3 proyectos. Esto demuestra que las prácticas de colaboración se dan en la interacción R4 entre los actores que juntan una multitud de culturas, motivos y experiencias. R5 Este conocimiento da una visión de la complejidad cultural y es importante para R6 comprender y mejorar los resultados del proyecto. R7 R8 Prácticas de colaboración en mega proyectos R9 Los debates académicos sobre la gestión de proyectos y la gestión intercultural forman R10 la base teórica para este estudio. Dentro del campo de investigación que se centra R11 en los proyectos y la gestión de proyectos existe una amplia variedad de perspectivas R12 de investigación. La perspectiva tradicional de proyectos se enfoca desde un punto R13 de vista técnico y su objetivo es el desarrollo de mejores métodos de trabajo a fin R14 de que la eficiencia y la eficacia de la gestión de proyectos pueda ser aumentada. R15 El propósito de este enfoque es que los proyectos se entreguen a tiempo, dentro R16 del presupuesto y de acuerdo con el alcance. Otra perspectiva en este campo de R17 investigación tiene sus raíces intelectuales en la ciencias sociales y está interesado R18 en la gestión de proyectos como una práctica social, así que estudia los aspectos de R19 comportamiento y de organización dentro de los proyectos (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; R20 Söderlund, 2004; Van Marrewijk & Veenswijk, 2006). Este enfoque considera los R21 proyectos como únicos fenómenos organizacionales y esta investigación se conecta R22 con ese punto de vista. Desde esta perspectiva, los proyectos son percibidos como R23 arreglos temporales y sociales donde los investigadores prestan atención al contexto, R24 la cultura y las creencias propias dentro del proyecto. Además existe una demanda R25 para la comprensión de cómo las relaciones entre los individuos y los grupos se R26 desarrollan y cómo las relaciones de poder afectan la realidad social del personal del R27 proyecto. Los investigadores afirman que debería prestarse atención a ‘la actualidad R28 del proyecto’, a los asuntos cotidianos de las organizaciones de proyectos y les resulta R29 importante anotar las experiencias de los participantes de los proyectos (Cicmil et al., R30 2006). A través de estudiar la organización del proyecto desde adentro es posible R31 describir el comportamiento en estas organizaciones y así se acumula el conocimiento R32 sobre la dinámica interna de la organización del proyecto. R33 R34

301 Spanish Summary

R1 Recientemente, en el campo la de gestión de proyectos, se presentó un enfoque en que las prácticas son el centro de atención. Este enfoque (se llama Practice Turn) R3 pone el énfasis en la acción y la interacción, en los detalles del trabajo y examina lo que la gente hace y dice acerca de un evento o actividad específica. A través del R5 concepto de la práctica se pueden explicar complejos fenómenos organizacionales. R6 Esto significa que el uso de este concepto da una visión de qué hacen las personas, R7 cómo lo hacen y en qué condiciones realizan sus acciones. La participación en R8 una práctica es un proceso continuo en el cual, sobre la base del entendimientos R9 compartidos tácitamente, las personas en grupo realizan, refinan, repiten y cambian R10 la práctica (Geiger, 2009). En este proceso se toma regularmente un tiempo de R11 estabilidad en que se da significado a la práctica antes de desarrollarla más. Uno da R12 un paso fuera de la rutina para reflexionar y dar sentido a lo que sucedió y determinar R13 cómo se puede afilar la práctica hasta tener una práctica nueva o mejorada. Como R14 se ha mencionado, la atención por las prácticas demuestra lo que realmente está R15 sucediendo en una organización del proyecto e indica cómo las personas dan sentido R16 a la diversidad de culturas y costumbres de su entorno de trabajo cotidiano. R17 En la disciplina académica acerca de la gestión intercultural, este investigación R18 se alinea con la perspectiva que reconoce las organizaciones como una multiplicidad R19 de culturas. Según esta perspectiva, los actores crean supuestos compartidos R20 dentro de la organización, pero también se obtienen otros supuestos de fuera de R21 la organización (Boyacigiller et al., 2004). En esta perspectiva, la cultura no está R22 proporcionalmente relacionada a la nacionalidad, pero es visto como un conjunto R23 de supuestos implícitos y explícitos que afectan las percepciones, pensamientos, R24 sentimiento y comportamientos de un grupo de personas porque estos supuestos R25 se aprenden y se transmiten a través de la interacción (Sackmann & Philips, 2004). R26 Cuando las personas se juntan en una organización del proyecto, su identidad R27 individual está todavía arraigada en la organización de origen, en su profesión y en R28 otros grupos en que se participa (Sackmann & Friesl, 2007). Esto significa que en R29 las relaciones de colaboración, donde las diferentes culturas y prácticas de trabajo R30 se encuentran, la gente a veces tiene que tomar distancia de algunas costumbres y R31 prácticas tradicionales. Ellos interpretan sus hábitos y costumbres y probablemente R32 tienen que adaptarse para hacer la colaboración posible. Los investigadores Huxham R33 R34

302 Spanish Summary

y Vangen (2004) afirman que colaboración puede ir en ambos sentidos: puede ser R1 tan decepcionante que el resultado de la colaboración está debajo de la expectativas R2 o se puede producir beneficios que las partes por separado no podrían lograr. R3 En megaproyectos la colaboración es inevitable: diferentes organizaciones tienen R4 que compartir sus conocimientos, habilidades y experiencias para poder realizar el R5 proyecto. Cada parte aporta su propia cultura y las prácticas de trabajo, sus ideas y R6 costumbres establecidas y sus específicos intereses y perspectivas sobre la participación R7 en el proyecto. Sin embargo, son interdependientes. Particularmente en el sector de la R8 construcción, hay ejemplos de problemas en la colaboración entre las organizaciones. R9 Después de fuertes críticas a los resultados decepcionantes de los proyectos, la falta R10 de integración y una cultura en la que se buscan culpables en lugar de soluciones, el R11 sector de la construcción se obliga a enfocarse en mejorar la colaboración (Dietrich R12 et al., 2010; Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011; Veenswijk & Berendse, 2008). Lo que llama R13 la atención es que, a pesar de las dificultades de la colaboración y de la diversidad R14 cultural, existe poca información acerca de los efectos conscientes e inconscientes de R15 estas características en el nivel cotidiano de las organizaciones de proyectos (Ainamo R16 et al., 2010). Al hacer uso del concepto de la práctica y así estudiar a los hábitos y R17 costumbres cotidianas de los actores, esta investigación tiene como objetivo dar una R18 visión de la dinámica interna en torno a la complejidad cultural. Además, la intención R19 es desarrollar una mejor comprensión de los procesos de colaboración a nivel micro R20 de la organización del proyecto. R21 R22 Etnografía en la práctica R23 La base filosófica de este estudio radica en la ontología constructivista social y R24 la epistemología interpretativa. Esta perspectiva está basada en la idea de que la R25 realidad social se construye en las interacciones y las interpretaciones intersubjetivas R26 de las personas. Esta realidad construida está llena tanto de un contexto cultural e R27 histórico como los valores morales, públicos y personales; el investigador tiene una R28 contribución activa en el proceso de construcción social. R29 (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012; Ybema et al., 2009). Esto está en contraste con R30 el positivismo, en qué los investigadores asumen una realidad social que consiste en R31 hechos que el investigador debe identificar y categorizar. Constructivistas sociales R32 R33 R34

303 Spanish Summary

R1 tratan de entender la realidad social mediante la comprensión de cómo la gente da sentido a su realidad social, en cuyo contexto desempeña un papel importante. R3 Una metodología de investigación constructivo-interpretativo, también llamado investigación interpretativa, se relaciona con esta (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). R5 El foco de la investigación interpretativa es el papel del investigador: el/ella es parte R6 de la práctica cotidiana. El asunto es que el investigador puede observar, preguntar R7 y experimentar lo que experimenta el actor y describe esto por medio de sus propias R8 interpretaciones. R9 Dado el hecho de que este estudio quiere obtener una mejor imagen de la práctica R10 diaria en la organización del proyecto y es curioso por cómo el personal del proyecto R11 da sentido a la complejidad cultural de su entorno, una metodología etnográfica se R12 adapta muy bien. Inspirado por la antropología, la etnografía organizacional es una R13 manera para estudiar de cerca fenómenos dentro de la organización. Eso significa que R14 el investigador estudia el fenómeno durante mucho tiempo, forma parte de lo que la R15 gente hace y cómo la gente habla sobre esta actividad. Asimismo, el investigador es R16 sensible a cómo alguien da sentido a esta actividad y al contexto de la organización R17 (Ybema et al., 2009). Precisamente porque el investigador desempeña un papel R18 importante en la interpretación de la realidad social, la reflexividad es esencial. Esta R19 reflexión se expresa en una descripción detallada y clara de cómo la investigación R20 se ha llevado a cabo, las decisiones tomadas y los antecedentes personales del R21 investigador y su función en la investigación. La investigación etnográfica se presenta R22 en una forma que se llama ‘etnografía’: una descripción muy detallada del campo R23 para que el lector tenga la sensación de haber estado presente (Bate, 1997). R24 El programa de la ampliación del Canal de Panamá fue seleccionado como un R25 caso para este estudio. Este megaproyecto cumplió con los requisitos para esta R26 investigación: se encuentra fuera de los Países Bajos, en un lugar (América Central) R27 donde pocos megaproyectos fueron examinados, el lenguaje del proyecto era Inglés R28 y, más importante aún, yo tenía acceso a este proyecto. Entre julio de 2009 y julio de R29 2010 estaba presente diariamente en la organización del proyecto. Rijkswaterstaat R30 (el Ministerio Holandés de Obras Públicas y Gestión del Agua) me puso en contacto R31 con la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá, y con la ayuda de la Embajada de Holanda R32 en Panamá conocí gente dentro del consorcio Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC). En R33 R34

304 Spanish Summary

todos los niveles de la organización del proyecto pude observar y realizar entrevistas. R1 Hablé con los trabajadores en las obras de construcción, supervisores, personal R2 administrativo y gerentes acerca de sus ideas, sentimientos, experiencias y creencias R3 con respecto a colaboración en el proyecto. Estas entrevistas tuvieron un carácter R4 abierto para que los encuestados pudieran hablar espontáneamente sobre temas R5 que les afectan hasta las capas del corazón. Las observaciones fueron hechas en las R6 oficinas del proyecto ubicadas al lado del Océano Atlántico (en el pueblo Gatún) y R7 el Pacífico (en Cocolí). En ambos, en ACP y GUPC, he seguido a los supervisores, R8 ingenieros y gerentes de proyecto para observar sus actividades diarias. También R9 estaba presente en las reuniones, ocasiones especiales de las organizaciones y me R10 podría mover libremente en las oficinas. Anoté lo que dijeron, hice dibujos del diseño R11 de las oficinas y he descrito donde la gente estaba sentada. Además, yo llevó un R12 diario personal. Aparte de las entrevistas y observaciones, a través de documentos R13 obtuve información sobre el megaproyecto y su contexto. Así que recogí, entre R14 otras cosas, artículos de prensa, folletos, presentaciones, documentos de la política, R15 informes anuales, organigramas, contratos, estudios científicos, documentos de la R16 licitación, fotografías, mapas y material de vídeo. Utilizando el programa para el R17 análisis de datos cualitativos Atlas.ti analicé los datos y empecé el proceso de escribir. R18 Empecé con los capítulos empíricos de este libro, cuyas descripciones detalladas de R19 las prácticas de colaboración que surgieron en la investigación dan una visión de la R20 dinámica interna dentro de la organización del proyecto. A algunas personas claves R21 las dejé leer mis textos y les pedí darme sus comentarios, principalmente para la R22 confirmación, pero también porque quería darles una idea del estilo etnográfico en R23 que se presentan los datos. Así mismo mi profesores, colegas académicos y algunos R24 directores del proyecto leyeron mis textos, también los he presentado en varias R25 conferencias académicas y publiqué un artículo en una revista científica (vea Smits & R26 Van Marrewijk, 2012). R27 Como cuando se toma una fotografía, una imagen se expone desde diferentes R28 perspectivas. Así mismo, la historia que les presento en esta tesis se basa en mi R29 perspectiva e interpretación, es escrita por como yo he visto la situación. Mis R30 antecedentes culturales, es decir, mujer holandesa, criada en una sociedad occidental, R31 con educación superior en Recursos Humanos y una maestría en Cultura, Organización R32 R33 R34

305 Spanish Summary

R1 y Administración y la enseñanza que he disfrutado, han influido en mi forma de ver el campo de la investigación. Por un lado, a menudo era una desconocida en el campo, R3 lo que ayudó a darme cuenta a algunas cosas que otros consideran normal. Por otro lado, estaba incluida amablemente en la organización del proyecto y pronto me sentí R5 como en casa en Panamá. Después de completar el trabajo de campo me mantengo R6 informada del desarrollo del proyecto, mantuve contacto con los informantes clave R7 y visité Panamá por un par de veces para poder verificar los datos de investigación y R8 análisis preliminar. R9 R10 El Canal de Panamá: una mirada hacia atrás para mirar hacia delante R11 Panamá, teniendo fronteras con Costa Rica y Colombia, conecta América Central con R12 América del Sur. Desde el descubrimiento del país hay ideas sobre la construcción de R13 un acceso directo a través de América Central que comunicara el Océano Atlántico R14 y el Océano Pacífico. En 1881, cuando Panamá aún era una provincia de Colombia, R15 los franceses comenzaron la construcción de un canal a nivel del mar por Panamá. R16 Bajo la dirección del famoso ingeniero del Canal de Suez, Ferdinand de Lesseps, R17 trataron de luchar contra las inundaciones, deslizamientos de tierra, la corrupción R18 y las persistentes epidemias de fiebre amarilla y la malaria, pero eso salió mal y R19 en 1889 terminó el proyecto (Greene, 2009; McCullough, 1977; Parker, 2009). El R20 presidente de Estados Unidos, Theodore Roosevelt, entró en acción inmediatamente. R21 Convencido de que un canal sería de gran importancia tanto para el desarrollo R22 económico de América como para proteger las costas, el apoyó un golpe de estado R23 que resultó en la independencia de Panamá de Colombia. Se acordó que Estados R24 Unidos obtenía la posesión de un área ancho de diez millas a lado del canal, la R25 Zona del Canal, en que Estados Unidos podría disfrutar la plena soberanía. Como R26 resultado de los acuerdos, Panamá fue dependiendo de Estados Unidos en tres R27 formas. Primero, un sistema de nómina de doble nivel fue implementado en cual los R28 estadounidenses fueron pagados en monedas de oro, mientras que los panameños R29 y otros trabajadores del canal fueron pagados en la moneda de plata, que tenía un R30 valor menor. Segundo, los panameños eran considerados como ciudadanos de clase R31 menor y excluidos de la vida pública con señales como “sólo para blancos”. Tercero, R32 con la aceptación del dólar de Estados Unidos como moneda de curso legal, Panamá R33 R34

306 Spanish Summary

no podría llevar a cabo su propia política financiera. Por lo tanto, en el papel el canal R1 estaba en manos panameños y bajo el control de los Estados Unidos, sin embargo, en R2 la práctica, la Zona del Canal fue tratada como un territorio soberano donde la leyes R3 estadounidenses y el poder estaban supremo (Harding, 2006). R4 En el 15 de agosto de 1914 se inauguró oficialmente el Canal de Panamá. El R5 proyecto duró diez años, había atraído a gente de todo el mundo y se terminó seis R6 meses antes a un costo de USD $ 23.000.000, que estaba debajo el precio estimado R7 (McCullough, 1977). Después de la apertura, el Canal de Panamá quedó en manos R8 de los norteamericanos, lo cual causó frustración en los panameños. Durante años R9 hubo discusiones acerca de quien debe administrar el canal, pero sólo hasta 1977 el R10 presidente de Panamá Omar Torrijos y el presidente de Estados Unidos Jimmy Carter R11 firmaron nuevos acuerdos sobre el Canal de Panamá. Se decidió que transferían el R12 canal de Panamá gradualmente y el 31 de diciembre de 1999 Panamá se convirtió R13 en el propietario oficial del Canal de Panamá. A partir de éste momento la ACP R14 es totalmente responsable de la operación, la administración, el funcionamiento, la R15 conservación, el mantenimiento, el mejoramiento y modernización del Canal. Hoy R16 en día el Canal de Panamá opera como se entregó hace más de noventa años. Una R17 travesía del Atlántico al Pacífico toma aproximadamente ocho a diez horas. Utilizando R18 esclusas, los buques son levantados al alto nivel de canal a veintiséis metros. Un barco R19 con la dimensiones máximas de 294.1 metros de largo, 32.3 metros de ancho y R20 12.04 metros de profundidad se llama Panamax. Los buques con un formato más R21 grande, llamado Postpanamax, no pueden cruzar el canal, todavía deben tomar la R22 ruta alternativa a través de la punta sur de Sudamérica y el Cabo de Hornos en R23 Chile. En 2009 pasaron, al día, más de cuarenta barcos por el Canal de Panamá. R24 Contenedores pagaron promedio US$ 300.000 para el cruce del Océano Atlántico al R25 Océano Pacífico. Particularmente para aumentar la capacidad de la vía acuática, pero R26 también para seguir siendo competitivos en el mercado marítimo global, en 2006 la R27 ACP introdujo el plan para la ampliación del Canal de Panamá de cual fue aprobado R28 por un referéndum. R29 El programa de expansión completo se divide en cuatro partes. Parte 1 cubre el R30 diseño y la construcción de un nuevo juego de esclusas. Parte 2 incluye las excavaciones R31 necesarias para dar cabida a las esclusas y los canales de acceso. La tercera parte se R32 R33 R34

307 Spanish Summary

R1 centra en las operaciones de dragado necesarias para ampliar y profundizar el canal. Parte 4 del programa tiene como objetivo mejorar el suministro de agua, porque R3 para usar más esclusas se necesita más agua. Dentro de esta investigación el enfoque está en la primera parte del programa, la parte más prestigiosa del mega proyecto: R5 el proyecto del Tercer Juego de Esclusas. Este proyecto está calculado en US$ 3.2 mil R6 millones y es el proyecto más caro en todo el programa de ampliación, que tiene un R7 precio total estimado de US$ 5.2 mil millones. Para apoyar con las tareas de gestión R8 del proyecto la ACP contrató la consultoría estadounidense CH2M Hill. Después de R9 un procedimiento de licitación decidieron la ACP y CH2M Hill que el consorcio GUPC R10 fuera contratado para la ejecución de esta parte del proyecto. GUPC está formado R11 por las empresas Sacyr de España, Impregilo de Italia, Jan de Nul de Bélgica y CUSA R12 de Panamá. R13 R14 Intermedio: preparando el escenario para la colaboración R15 El 8 de julio de 2009, durante una ceremonia emocionante, se anunció que consorcio R16 ha ganado la licitación para el diseño y construcción de las nuevas esclusas en el R17 Canal de Panamá. La ACP declaró que GUPC logró la mayoría de los puntos para la R18 propuesta técnica. Esto es importante porque aunque GUPC ganó la puntuación más R19 alta, la diferencia con los resultados técnicos de los otros consorcios era relativamente R20 pequeño, así que las propuestas de precios juega un papel enorme. La ACP anunció R21 que GUPC ha mandado el precio más bajo para este proyecto: US$ 3.118.880.001 R22 y por lo tanto gana la licitación. Sin embargo, durante la ceremonia GUPC se da R23 cuenta que la ACP tenía reservado un precio más alto por la ejecución del proyecto, R24 lo que les deja un sabor amargo. Los socios del proyecto GUPC tiene la sensación R25 de que ofrecieron un precio demasiado bajo. Discusiones sobre cómo los gastos y R26 los beneficios debe dividirse entre las partes dominaban. Además hubo dificultades R27 entorno a la transición de la fase de licitación para la fase de implementación. En R28 resumen, la colaboración entre las partes de GUPC fue objeto de una gran presión. R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

308 Spanish Summary

Prácticas dentro la organización GUPC: disminuir la colaboración R1 En este primer capítulo empírico, se muestra cómo la colaboración se refleja entre R2 el personal del consorcio GUPC. Diferentes prácticas de colaboración enseñan cómo R3 los actores dieron sentido y enfrentaron la complejidad cultural en su trabajo diario. R4 Los empleados han utilizado metáforas para describir la organización y las dinámicas R5 internas en la organización del proyecto. Las metáforas que surgieron son: ‘guerra’, R6 ‘matrimonio arreglado’, ‘escalar la montaña’, ‘animales’ e ‘institución gubernamental’. R7 Estas se utilizaron para reflexionar sobre la situación de la organización del proyecto R8 y apoyaron al personal del proyecto para comprender entre ellos el proceso de R9 colaboración. La utilización de metáforas ilustra los pensamientos, sentimientos, R10 interacciones y experiencias del personal del proyecto y también muestra cómo la R11 colaboración entre culturas en la organización del proyecto tomó forma. R12 No solo para simplificar la complejidad de la organización del proyecto, sino R13 también para identificar y estandarizar, los actores hicieron uso de etiquetas R14 culturales. La etiqueta de cultura nacional se utiliza para indicar la gente en la base de R15 la nacionalidad y los estereotipos que caracterizan un país. Lo que llama la atención R16 es que, a lado de la utilización de las etiquetas ‘españoles’, ‘italianos’, ‘belgas’ y R17 ‘panameños’, también manifestaron dos etiquetas que simplificaron estos grupos R18 más. Basado en la ubicación de la red de las organizaciones con origen en Europa, R19 las etiquetas ‘sureños’ y ‘norteños’ dividieron a los empleados de GUPC en sólo dos R20 grupos culturales. Sorprendentemente, estas etiquetas se utilizaron sólo en ciertas R21 situaciones. Cuando se habló de la actitud hacia el trabajo de los españoles y los R22 italianos no se agruparon bajo la misma etiqueta, porque sobre este tema había R23 una diferencia clara entre las dos culturas. La etiqueta de la cultura nacional estaba R24 profundamente arraigada en las conversaciones y prácticas cotidianas dentro de la R25 organización del proyecto. Con frecuencia se trataba de crear distancia entre las R26 personas en lugar de fortalecer la colaboración. La etiqueta de la cultura organizacional R27 tuvo el mismo efecto. Esta etiqueta, basada en la imagen general que los actores R28 tenían sobre las organizaciones de origen y los valores y prácticas asociadas, alimentó R29 las interpretaciones subjetivas de los empleados sobre los grupos dentro GUPC. El R30 uso de metáforas y etiquetas demuestra que el personal del proyecto buscaba una R31 manera para entender la complejidad de la organización, se buscaron similitudes e R32 R33 R34

309 Spanish Summary

R1 intereses comunes. Sin embargo, en el lugar de trabajo estas prácticas bloquearon el proceso de colaboración. R3 También la distribución de los espacios del proyecto ha afectado la colaboración dentro GUPC. La oficina del proyecto en el Atlántico fue ejecutado principalmente R5 por los empleados de Sacyr, mientras que la oficina del proyecto en el Pacífico fue R6 dirigía por personal de Impregilo. En las relaciones diarias siempre hicieron una R7 diferencia entre las dos ubicaciones por lo cual había poca conexión entre las dos R8 oficinas del proyecto. Aparte de las oficinas del proyecto también estaba la sede R9 de GUPC, ubicado en Corozal Oeste, cerca de la ciudad de Panamá. El personal del R10 proyecto se identificó con la ubicación en la que trabajaron y se marcaron fronteras R11 entres los tres sitios del proyectos. Se sentían aislados de la sede, pero también se R12 diferenciaban fuertemente de los otros sitios del proyecto. R13 Además, las observaciones en la organización del proyecto ilustraron que los R14 empleados querían una estructura organizacional clara. No había un organigrama R15 alineado, por lo que faltaba una compresión clara de las relaciones formales dentro R16 GUPC. El resultado de la distribución de espacios de la organización del proyecto y R17 la falta de una estructura alineada de la organización hacía que los empleados se R18 aferraran a las costumbres y hábitos tradicionales. R19 Los resultados de las prácticas mencionadas en este capítulo muestran la R20 diferenciación, segregación y fragmentación entre el personal del proyecto. Dado R21 que los actores principalmente prestaron atención a las diferencias y las fronteras, se R22 aumentó la distancia emocional, surgió un ‘canal’ entre ellos. Por lo tanto, yo llamo R23 las prácticas indicadas en este capítulo ‘disminuidores de la colaboración’. R24 R25 Colaboración dentro GUPC: prácticas de amplificación R26 Siguiendo con el capítulo anterior presento en este capítulo las prácticas de R27 colaboración que el personal del proyecto realizó, formó y desarrolló para obtener R28 una relación de colaboración en la organización del proyecto. A pesar de las R29 dificultades dentro GUPC los empleados del proyecto notaron que adaptarse entre R30 ellos y compartir los conocimientos con los demás era necesario para el progreso del R31 proyecto. R32 R33 R34

310 Spanish Summary

Así que encontraron entre ellos intereses compartidos. La pasión que tienen por R1 la profesión ha reunido al personal del proyecto. Hablaron de otros mega proyectos R2 en que habían trabajado, de la educación que tenían y de la pasión que compartían. R3 Hablaban el mismo idioma. Dentro de la organización del proyecto también R4 compartieron el mantra ‘hay que hacer el trabajo’. Este mantra se escuchaba a diario R5 en el lugar de trabajo de GUPC y representaba una actitud pragmática del personal R6 del proyecto que fueron determinantes para terminar el proyecto. Los intereses R7 comunes y este mantra ayudaron los trabajadores para construir una relación y lograr R8 colaboración entre ellos. R9 Unos meses después del inicio de la fase de ejecución se anunciaron ‘los R10 constructores de puentes’: las personas con una posición neutral en la organización R11 del proyecto comenzaron a actuar como intermediarios. Inicialmente, ellos fueron R12 contratados por sus conocimientos y experiencia específicos, principalmente en R13 los mega proyectos estadounidenses, además ellos también se desarrollaron como R14 personas claves que podrían cerrar las brechas entre las diferentes personas del R15 proyecto. Resultó que estos constructores de puentes eran esenciales en el proceso R16 de colaboración dentro GUPC. Ellos actuaban como traductores, compartieron sus R17 conocimientos y experiencias y eran, porque no tenían ninguna relación con una R18 de las organizaciones de origen, imparciales en los conflictos. Precisamente porque R19 estos individuos estaban menos conectados con GUPC ellos podían operar con R20 mayor libertad y flexibilidad y también ellos dieron una perspectiva diferente sobre la R21 situación cotidiana del proyecto. R22 En la interacciones entre el personal del proyecto se comenzó a adaptar la una R23 a la otra. Los actores cambiaron su lenguaje o comportamiento para poder de lograr R24 juntos un mejor resultado. Aprendieron la lengua de la otra persona, a través de R25 clases de español o inglés, por lo que la diferencia de idioma era más pequeña y la R26 interacción y colaboración mejoraban. Las personas también adaptaron su actitud R27 hacia el trabajo y cambiaron algunas prácticas en su trabajo. Una diferente actitud R28 hacia el trabajo encajaba mejor dentro de GUPC y por la adaptación de las prácticas R29 lograron una mejor colaboración entre ellos. Además se han desarrollado nuevas R30 prácticas, por ejemplo la biblioteca técnica hecha especialmente para los miembros R31 de la organización del proyecto. R32 R33 R34

311 Spanish Summary

R1 Por último, también trabajaron juntos en un nivel informal para mejorar la colaboración entre el personal del proyecto. Los actores tenían la necesidad de R3 llegar a conocer mejor a los demás, a mezclar los diferentes orígenes culturales y a pasar tiempo juntos. Por lo tanto habían organizado, desde el lugar de trabajo, R5 varias actividades sociales. Estos actividades no solo animaron a los empleados para R6 compartir su trabajo diario con los demás, sino que también crearon amistades R7 dentro de GUPC. Supuestamente, el personal del proyecto siente una conducción R8 natural para trabajar juntos y esta dispuesto a construir una relación de colaboración. R9 Las prácticas presentadas en este capítulo comparten el objetivo de mejorar R10 la colaboración dentro de la organización del proyecto y por lo tanto yo les llamo R11 ‘amplificadores de colaboración’. Los participantes del proyecto se integraron y R12 estaban involucrados. Eso significa que, a pesar de la situación desagradable en el R13 ambiente de trabajo diario, había una necesidad subyacente para colaborar que R14 juntó los empleados. R15 R16 Chaperoning: colaboración entre ACP y CH2M Hill R17 Dado que la ACP nunca realizó un mega proyecto de la magnitud del programa de R18 ampliación del Canal de Panamá, decidió pedir ayuda de una consultoría conocida. R19 La reconocida firma norteamericana CH2M Hill ganó la licitación para la gestión de R20 proyectos en el mega proyecto. Sin embrago, pronto quedó claro que ambas partes R21 tenían diferentes ideas acerca de cómo esta colaboración debía configurarse. R22 La ACP describió en los documentos de licitación que estaba buscando una parte R23 que podría apoyar y asesorar la organización con la ejecución de las tareas de gestión R24 de proyectos. La parte externa no podría funcionar de modo autónomo, pero debería R25 colaborar con el personal de la ACP para ponerse al tanta en el trabajo. La ACP tenía R26 planeado una colaboración intensiva en la que la consultoría se cuenta con un papel R27 de capacitar, asesorar y dirigir el personal de la ACP. Por otro lado, los empleados de R28 CH2M Hill asumieron una implementación estándar de una asignación de gestión del R29 proyecto. Ellos pensaban que estarían a cargo del control y la gestión del proyecto, R30 que estarían liderando los procedimientos y procesos diarios del proyecto y que R31 serían considerados responsables por los resultados. Sin embargo, el contrato con la R32 ACP pide otro tipo de comportamiento, diferente a lo que los consultores estaban R33 acostumbrados. R34

312 Spanish Summary

La ACP describió precisamente cómo se imaginó la colaboración con los R1 consultores. Yo llamo a esta forma de colaboración ‘chaperoning’. Un chaperón guía R2 y protege a un principiante, enseña al aprendiz las costumbres y prácticas, comparte R3 sus experiencias y da consejos sobre cómo comportarse. La ACP diseñó una nueva R4 forma de colaboración en que los empleados estaban muy involucrados en las R5 operaciones diarias del mega proyecto. En puestos claves se colocaron dos personas: R6 un empleado de la ACP y un consultor de CH2M Hill. Esta forma de colaboración R7 era nueva para los consultores de CH2M Hill. Normalmente ellos tienen la libertad R8 para ejecutar un proyecto, para tomar decisiones y ellos están acostumbrados de R9 ser responsables por los resultados de un proyecto. En este proyecto fue diferente. R10 Oficialmente la ACP mantuvo toda la autoridad y la responsabilidad mientras que R11 CH2M Hill, en el papel de chaperón, supervisó el trabajo de los empleados de la ACP, R12 les enseñó las prácticas de gestión de proyectos y vigiló el calendario y el presupuesto. R13 Esta forma de colaboración no era totalmente nueva para el personal de la ACP. Ya en R14 el proceso de contratación la ACP expresó la intención de trabajar en esta manera, es R15 decir, de la misma manera como la forma en que el canal fue transferido a Panamá. R16 En esta época los estadounidenses y los panameños también trabajaron codo a codo R17 para compartir sus conocimientos. R18 Las experiencias con chaperoning eran muy distintos. Los empleados de CH2M R19 Hill se sentían totalmente incómodos en el papel de facilitador porque nunca habían R20 realizado proyectos en este estilo. Dentro de la ACP hubo sentimientos mezclados R21 acerca de la presencia de los consultores. Algunos empleados no veían ningún R22 beneficio en tener un asesor a su lado, mientras que otros estaban contentos R23 de que los americanos estaban presentes. También apareció que las diferencias R24 fundamentales entre la ACP y CH2M Hill obstaculizaron la colaboración. La ACP R25 es una organización pública y CH2M Hill es una empresa privada, lo que resultó R26 en diferentes normas y valores entre estas organizaciones. De todos modos, ambos R27 partes decidieron a continuar la colaboración. R28 Para promover la colaboración el lema ‘un equipo, una misión’ se revitalizó. Este R29 lema se origina en el tiempo en que el canal fue transferido a Panamá y estuve R30 introducido para crear una colaboración suave. Dos historias personales de la gente R31 en la organización del proyecto muestran cómo se da esta colaboración. También R32 describí, para ilustrar el concepto chaperoning, una reunión en la que el personal R33 R34

313 Spanish Summary

R1 de la ACP y los consultores de CH2M Hill participan. Estos ejemplos indican que la colaboración era más difícil de lo que el lema sugirió. R3 El capítulo demuestra que diferentes interpretaciones acerca de colaboración pueden causar conflictos y una lucha por el poder entre las partes. En este proyecto R5 la ACP y CH2M Hill encontraron lentamente una manera para dar forma a la R6 colaboración: el personal de la ACP se dedicó a las tareas internas y políticas dentro R7 de la organización, mientras que los consultores se enfocaron en las tareas técnicas R8 y asumieron el liderazgo en las oficinas del proyecto. Además, este capitulo muestra R9 que, aunque el contrato describe las expectativas en cuanto a la colaboración, las R10 prácticas tradicionales están arraigadas profundamente en el trabajo diario del R11 personal del proyecto. R12 R13 El trabajo intercultural en la ampliación del Canal de Panamá: un colaberinto R14 En el ultimo capítulo de esta tesis analizo los hallazgos y doy respuestas a las preguntas R15 de la investigación. La colaboración es un tema crucial en la ejecución de un mega R16 proyecto, lo que esta demostrado claramente en este estudio. La organización R17 del proyecto, que consiste en un laberinto de diferentes culturas (nacionales, R18 organizacionales y profesionales), identidades y prácticas, combinada con distintas R19 perspectivas e intereses para la participación, forma un entorno de trabajo complejo. R20 En esta compleja red de interacciones, la colaboración es necesaria. Trabajar juntos R21 es tan difícil que los investigadores Huxham en Vangen (2004) sugieren que es mejor R22 evitar la colaboración. En la ejecución de un mega proyecto, eso es imposible. En este R23 proceso la colaboración es inevitable. Una organización sola no puede ejecutar un R24 proyecto de esta magnitud y a menudo se requiere de conocimientos específicos, por R25 lo tanto, colaborar con otras partes, es indispensable. R26 En el programa de la ampliación del Canal de Panamá hemos visto que, en el R27 proceso de colaboración, el personal del proyecto reflejó sus prácticas y las adaptó R28 para encontrar su camino en la organización del proyecto. Mientras que se daba R29 sentido a la complejidad del trabajo cotidiano, se tradujeron las prácticas a formas R30 más simples y comprensibles. A pesar de las diferencias institucionales entre las R31 organizaciones o los valores y prácticas convencionales, el personal del proyecto R32 tuvo la necesidad de construir una relación de colaboración. La sensación de estar R33 R34

314 Spanish Summary

juntos y la involucración personal animaron a los actores para fundar una relación R1 colaborativa. El reflexionar sobre sus hábitos y costumbres y adaptarlas, también R2 se llama ‘reflexión en la acción’ (Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009), o al desarrollar nuevas R3 prácticas, la colaboración puede despegar. Yo sugiero que el desarrollo de una alianza R4 puede ser visto como un ‘colaberinto’. Esta combinación de las palabras colaboración R5 y laberinto revela la complejidad de la colaboración. R6 Habían surgido diferentes prácticas de colaboración que muestran cómo los R7 actores dan sentido y manejan la complejidad de su entorno de trabajo diario. R8 Estas prácticas, como se muestra en los capítulos empíricos, se pueden dividir en R9 prácticas manifestadas y prácticas ocultas. Las prácticas manifestadas son aquellas R10 acciones y actividades que estaban directamente visibles y que eran evidentes en los R11 encuentros cotidianos entre los participantes del proyecto (Gherardi, 2009; Nicolini R12 et al., 2003b; Orlikowski, 2010). Dentro el colaberinto tres prácticas manifestadas R13 pasaron a primer plano. La primera es ‘condiciones conflictivas’. Esto se refiera a los R14 conflictos dentro de la colaboración en el proyecto y demuestra que los conflictos R15 obligaron a los actores a tomar conciencia de ellos mismos y la situación. La segunda R16 práctica manifestada es ‘buscando el consentimiento’, que se refiera a los acuerdos R17 que trataban de encontrar para trabajar juntos. La necesidad para trabajar juntos y R18 la disposición del personal del proyecto para construir una relación se refleja en la R19 tercera práctica manifestada, ‘construyendo relaciones recíprocas’. R20 Las prácticas ocultas no se pude observar directamente porque estaban debajo de la R21 superficie, estaban implícitas y difíciles de describir (Corradi et al., 2010; Gherardi, R22 2009). La primera práctica oculta es ‘comportamiento submarino’. En sentido R23 figurado, la práctica se refiere al comportamiento en que el personal del proyecto R24 opera autónomamente, sin tener en cuenta de los otros participantes en el proyecto. R25 ‘Narrando cuentos’ es la segunda práctica oculta. Esta se refiere a las historias que R26 circulan en el proyecto y conectan los empleados. La última práctica oculta es ‘lograr R27 sinergia’, en que los actores están abiertos para aprender unos de otros y adaptarse R28 para conseguir una relación colaborativa. R29 En la conclusión de la investigación yo levantó las prácticas de colaboración a un R30 nivel abstracto y las conectó a una línea de colaboración. Esta línea, el Collaboration R31 Continuum, indica la influencia de la práctica en la colaboración. Aunque no es mi R32 R33 R34

315 Spanish Summary

R1 intención conectar los hallazgos de la investigación con los resultados del proyecto, presento una forma para enseñar la relación entre las prácticas de colaboración y R3 el desarrollo de la colaboración. En el continuum, las prácticas de colaboración son divididos en tres categorías: (A) prácticas adversas, (B) prácticas de construcción, (C) R5 prácticas de conexión. La primera categoría incluye todas las prácticas que impiden R6 la colaboración, la segunda categoría contiene las prácticas que tratan de establecer R7 la colaboración y en la tercera categoría se refiere a las prácticas que logran la R8 colaboración. El continuum muestra que el enfoque en las prácticas en la gestión de R9 proyectos es esencial para una mejor comprensión de cómo los actores dan sentido R10 a la colaboración intercultural y para saber lo que hacen, cómo lo hacen y en qué R11 circunstancias se ejecutan sus prácticas. R12 Para lograr una visión más clara de los fenómenos sociales en la gestión de R13 proyectos, aconsejo a los investigadores el uso de los métodos de investigación R14 etnográficas. Una mirada más cercana de lo que está sucediendo diario en una R15 organización del proyecto da una idea de cómo el personal del proyecto da sentido R16 al entorno del trabajo cotidiano. A través de la atención especial a las prácticas R17 aprendemos qué es lo que hace la gente en la gestión de proyectos. Por otra parte, R18 para saber más acerca la colaboración intercultural en la gestión de proyectos, es R19 importante iniciar otros estudios en la colaboración en otros proyectos. Además, R20 investigaciones a los discursos, rituales, símbolos y una combinación de métodos R21 cualitativa y cuantitativa, podría aumentar nuestro conocimiento sobre el lado R22 ‘humano’ de la gestión de proyectos. R23 Para terminar esta investigación presento cinco recomendaciones para las R24 personas que trabajan en la práctica de proyectos y la gestión de proyectos. La primera R25 recomendación es familiarizarse con las partes con cual se estará colaborando. Aún R26 antes que se firme un contracto puede ser probado si la colaboración sería fructífera. R27 Un experto no sólo puede hacer un análisis de la organización, su cultura, los valores R28 esenciales y las prácticas de trabajo, sino también de las intenciones y expectativas R29 de la participación del proyecto. Un entendimiento claro de cada organización y sus R30 características, ofrece información sobre las diferencias y similitudes entre las partes y R31 proporciona apoyo en una conversación sobre estos temas. La identificación anticipada R32 de las características de cada parte reduce el riesgo de problemas posteriores. R33 R34

316 Spanish Summary

También es importante reflexionar sobra la relación colaborativa y aumentar este R1 proceso frecuentemente con actividades que siguen fomentando la colaboración. R2 Una segunda recomendación es crear conciencia sobre las numerosas posibilidades R3 de la colaboración intercultural. La diversidad de las diferencias y similitudes R4 culturales enriquecen el personal del proyecto con nuevas oportunidades y desafíos. R5 Estas oportunidades se pueden encontrar en la combinación de conocimientos y R6 habilidades, en la exploración de nuevas maneras de trabajo y en la comprensión R7 de cuales aspectos aún necesitan ser desarrollados más. Un mayor conciencia de la R8 diversidad cultural, los diferentes intereses para la participación en el proyecto y otras R9 maneras de trabajo proporcionan una gran cantidad de posibilidades que mejoran el R10 resultado de la colaboración. R11 La tercera recomendación es tener paciencia cuando hay un desacuerdo y R12 frustración entre los participantes del proyecto. Los conflictos son inevitables y, a R13 veces, son necesarios para fortalecer la colaboración. A condición de que sean bien R14 guiados, los conflictos promueven apertura y animan a la gente para expresar las R15 tensiones subyacentes. Sólo cuando los conflictos terminan en emociones, conducen R16 a desconfianza e impiden la colaboración. Sin embargo, los conflictos fortalecen R17 la colaboración cuando hay espacio en que la gente puede externar sus ideas, R18 perspectivas y expectativas. Por lo tanto, mi consejo es aceptar los conflictos como R19 una parte natural de la colaboración y usarlos para adaptar prácticas o desarrollar R20 nuevas. De esta manera un conflicto puede actuar como el inicio de un proceso de R21 cambio. R22 La cuarta recomendación se refiere a la introducción de una filosofía de proyecto. R23 Una historia que enseña el objetivo del proyecto aumenta la participación y fortalece R24 una relación colaborativa. Una filosofía tiene que dar una visión completa del R25 propósito del proyecto para que pueda servir como guía en la ejecución del proyecto R26 y pueda ser traducido a las actividades diarias del personal del proyecto. La formación R27 de una filosofía del proyecto no se puede hacer solo, así que la ayuda de las partes R28 del proyecto y otras partes interesadas es necesaria. Esta es una tarea especializada y R29 requiere mucho tiempo, por tanto, es conveniente formular una filosofía en manos de R30 un experto. Para desarrollar una filosofía de proyectos se puede introducir elementos R31 tales como un logotipo, un idioma del proyecto y las normas y valores compartidos R32 R33 R34

317 Spanish Summary

R1 para motivar a los empleados y crear su participación. Últimamente, esta intervención puede dar lugar a una nueva identidad para el personal del proyecto. R3 La quinta y última recomendación es dar seria atención a la colaboración y soportarla intensivamente. Fomentar la colaboración dentro la organización del R5 proyecto es fundamental. Las prácticas de colaboración puede ser identificadas R6 y también ser utilizadas para estimular la colaboración: se puede reducir a los R7 disminuidores mientras que se ponen más atención en los amplificadores. Por otra R8 parte, cuando un comportamiento nuevo esta requerido en la relación colaborativa, R9 se debe entrenar y manejar el personal del proyecto por sus nuevas actividades y R10 comportamientos. Empleados del proyecto están obligados a seguir estando críticos R11 con el tema de la colaboración y, sabiendo lo difícil de la colaboración, se aconseja R12 estudiar el uno al otro antes de que se entrar a la aventura de trabajar juntos. R13 Estas cinco recomendaciones reflejan mi consejo de enfocar en la colaboración en R14 las organizaciones de proyectos. Enfatizan la importancia de una perspectiva cultural R15 en la gestión de proyectos y demuestran que la atención explícita a la colaboración R16 intercultural es necesaria. Después de leer este estudio, podrán estar de acuerdo R17 conmigo que la cultura y la colaboración deben ser prioritarios en la agenda de la R18 gestión de proyectos. R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

318 Appendix 1

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32

Appendix 1 ACP Organization Chart R33 R34

319 R1

R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

320 References

References R1 R2 ACP. (2006a). Plan Maestro del Canal de Panamá. Panamá: Autoridad del Canal de R3 Panamá. R4 ACP. (2006b). Proposal for the Expansion of the Panama Canal: Third Set of Locks R5 Project. Retrieved March 2009, from http://www.pancanal.com/eng/plan/ R6 documentos/propuesta/acp-expansion-proposal.pdf R7 ACP. (2007). Invitation to Bid for the Program Management Services. Panamá: R8 Autoridad del Canal de Panamá. R9 ACP. (2009a). Annual Report 2009. Panamá: Autoridad del Canal de Panamá. R10 ACP. (2009b). Autoridad del Canal de Panamá. Retrieved March 2009, from http:// R11 www.pancanal.com R12 ACP. (2009c). Explicative Document of the Process for the Tender Evaluation and R13 Contractor Selection for the Design and Construction of the Third Set of R14 Locks. Panama: Autoridad del Canal de Panamá. R15 ACP. (2009d). Panama Canal Expansion Program Brochure. Panamá: Autoridad del R16 Canal de Panamá. R17 ACP. (2010a). Annual Report 2010. Panamá: Autoridad del Canal de Panamá. R18 ACP. (2010b). Panama Canal Expansion Program Brochure. Panamá: Autoridad del R19 Canal de Panamá. R20 ACP. (2011). Autoridad del Canal de Panamá. Retrieved December 2011, from http:// R21 www.pancanal.com R22 Ainamo, A., Artto, K., Levitt, R. E., Orr, R. J., Scott, W. R., & Tainio, R. (2010). Global R23 Projects: Strategic Perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26: R24 343-351. R25 Alverca, J. (2012). Panama Canal Expansion Program: Overview. http://www.bus-ex. R26 com/article/panama-canal-expansion-program-overview. R27 Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2010). Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for R28 Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. R29 Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2007). Changing Organizational Culture: cultural R30 change work in progress: Routlegde. R31 Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing Work Back In. Organization Science, 12(1): R32 76-95. R33 R34

321 References

R1 Barnes, B. (2001). Practice as collective action. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (17-28). R3 London: Routledge. Bate, S. P. (1997). Whatever Happened to Organizational Anthropology? A Review R5 of the Field of Organizational Ethnography and Anthropological Studies. R6 Human Relations, 50(9): 1147-1175. R7 Beck Jørgensen, T., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values: An Inventory. Administration R8 & Society, 39(3): 354-381. R9 Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial R10 and Corporate Change, 13: 4. R11 Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the R12 Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books. R13 Bjørkeng, K., Clegg, S., & Pitsis, T. (2009). Becoming (a) Practice. Management R14 Learning, 40(2): 145-159. R15 Blomquist, T., Hällgren, M., Nilsson, A., & Söderholm, A. (2010). Project-as-Practice: In R16 Search of Project Management Research That Matters. Project Management R17 Journal, 41(1): 5-16. R18 Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Understanding Professional Culture in Organizational R19 Context. Organization Studies, 15(2): 275-295. R20 Boyacigiller, N., Kleinberg, J., Philips, M., & Sackmann, S. (2004). Conceptualizing R21 Culture: Elucidating the streams of research in international cross-cultural R22 management. In B. J. Punnet & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for International R23 Management Research (2nd ed., 99-167). Michigan: University of Michigan R24 Press. R25 Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating organizational R26 culture in a German-Japanse joint venture. Human Relations, 53(4): 451- R27 487. R28 Bresnen, M. (2009). Living the dream? Understanding partnering as an emergent R29 practice. Construction Management and Economics, 27: 923-933. R30 Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., & Swan, J. (2005a). Editorial: Managing projects as R31 complex social settings. Building Research & Information, 33(6): 487-493. R32 R33 R34

322 References

Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., & Swan, J. (2005b). Organizational Routines, Situated R1 Learning and Processes of Change in Project-Based Organizations. Project R2 Management Journal, 36(3): 27-41. R3 Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2002). The engineering or evolution of co-operation? A R4 tale of two partnering projects. International Journal of Project Management, R5 20: 497-505. R6 Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2011). Projects and Partnerships: institutional processes R7 and emergent practices. In P. W. G. Morris, J. K. Pinto & J. Söderlund (Eds.), R8 The Oxford Handbook of Project Management (154-174). Oxford Oxford R9 University Press. R10 CH2M Hill (2011). CH2M Hill corporate profile. Retrieved June 2011, from http:// R11 www.ch2m.com/corporate/about_us/default.asp R12 Charles, M., Dicke, W., Koppenjan, J., & Ryan, N. (2007). Public Values and R13 Safeguarding Mechanisms in Infrastructure Policies. A conceptual and R14 theoretical exploration. Paper for the IRSPM Panel on Public Values in R15 Infrastructure, Potsdam, Germany. R16 Chia, R. (1996). The Problem of Reflexivity in Organizational Research: Towards a R17 Postmodern Science of Organization. Organization, 3(1): 31-59. R18 Cicmil, S., & Hodgson, D. (2006). Making projects critical: an introduction. In D. R19 Hodgson & S. Cicmil (Eds.), Making Projects Critical (1-28). New York: R20 Palgrave MacMillan. R21 Cicmil, S., & Marshall, D. (2005). Insights into collaboration at the project level: R22 complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building R23 Research & Information, 33(6): 523-535. R24 Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., & Hodgson, D. (2006). Rethinking Project R25 Management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of R26 Project Management, 24: 675-686. R27 Clausen, L. (2007). Corporate Communication Challenges: A ‘Negotiated’ Culture R28 Perspective. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7: 317- R29 332. R30 Clegg, S., Pitsis, T., Rura-Polley, T., & Marosszeky, M. (2002). Governmentality Matters: R31 Designing an Allicance Culture of Intern-Organizational Collaboration for R32 Managing Projects. Organization Studies, 23(3): 317-337. R33 R34

323 References

R1 Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20: 185-190. R3 Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the practice lens: Where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Management Learning, R5 41(3): 165-283. R6 CUSA (2011). Grupo Cusa. Retrieved November 2011, from http://www.grupocusa. R7 com R8 Czarniawska, B. (1998). A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. London: R9 Sage. R10 Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1992). Exploring Complex Organizations: a Cultural R11 Perspective. Newbury Park: Sage. R12 De Bruijn, H., & Dicke, W. (2006). Strategies for Safeguarding Public Values in R13 Liberalized Utility Sectors. Public Administration, 84(3): 717-735. R14 Del R. Martínez, M. (2009). Canal locks: boat lifters. The Panama Post, August 3-9, R15 2009. R16 Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st R17 Century. London: Sage. R18 Dietrich, P., Eskerod, P., Darlcher, D., & Sandhawalia, B. (2010). The Dynamics of R19 Collaboration in Multipartner Projects. Project Management Journal, 41(4): R20 59-78. R21 Duijnhoven, H. (2010). For Security Reasons: Narratives about Security Practices R22 and Organizational Change in the Dutch and Spanish Railway Sector. R23 Amsterdam: VU University Press. R24 Ediciones Balboa. (2010). Guide to the Panama Canal. Madrid: G. Jomagar. R25 Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. R26 Research Policy, 32: 789-808. R27 Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. R28 Organization Science, 22: 1240-1253. R29 Fine, G. A. (1996). Kitchens: the culture of restaurant work. Berkely: University of R30 California Press. R31 Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and Risk. An R32 atonomy of Ambition. New York: Cambridge University Press. R33 R34

324 References

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating Costs in Public Works R1 Project. Error or Lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3): R2 279-295. R3 Friar, W. (1996). Portrait of the Panama Canal: From construction to the twenty-first R4 century (3rd. ed.). Portland: Graphic Arts Center Publishing. R5 Geiger, D. (2009). Revisiting the Concept of Practice: Towards an Argumentative R6 Understanding of Practising. Management Learning, 40(2): 129-144. R7 Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-Based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in R8 Organizations. Organization, 7: 211-223. R9 Gherardi, S. (2009). Introduction: The Critical Power of the ‘Practice Lens’. R10 Management Learning, 40(2): 145-159. R11 Gherardi, S., & Perrotta, M. (2011). Egg dates sperm: a tale of a practice change and R12 its stabilization. Organization, 18(5): 595-614. R13 Gillespie Jr., C. A., Mc.Giffert, D. E., Grove Jr., B., & Nelson, C. R. (1999). Panama R14 Canal Transition: The Final Implementation. Washington, D.C.: The Atlantic R15 Counsil of the United States. R16 Grabher, G. (2002). Cool Projects, Boring Institutions: Temporary Collaboration in R17 Social Context. Regional Studies, 36(3): 205-214. R18 Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San R19 Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. R20 Greene, J. (2009). The Canal Builders: Making American’s empire at the Panama R21 Canal. New York: Penguin Books. R22 Greiman, V. (2010). The Big Dig: Learning from a Mega Project. ASK Magazine 47- R23 52. R24 Grupo Syv (2011). Sacyr Vallehermoso Group. Retrieved November 2011, from http:// R25 www.gruposyv.com R26 GUPC. (2011). Grupo Unidos por el Canal. Retrieved August 2011, from http://www. R27 gupc.com.pa R28 Hällgren, M., & Söderholm, A. (2010). Orchestrating deviations in global projects: R29 projects-as-practice observations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, R30 26(352-367). R31 R32 R33 R34

325 References

R1 Hällgren, M., & Söderholm, A. (2011). Projects-as-Practice: new approach, new insights. In P. W. G. Morris, J. K. Pinto & J. Söderlund (Eds.), The Oxford R3 Handbook of Project Management (500-518). Oxford: Oxford University Press. R5 Hällgren, M., & Wilson, T. (2008). The nature and management of crises in construction R6 projects: Projects-as-practice observations. International Journal of Project R7 Management, 26: 830-838. R8 Harding, R. C. (2006). The history of Panama. Westport: Greenwood Press. R9 Hartmann, A., & Bresnen, M. (2011). The emergence of partnering in construction R10 practice: an activity theory perspective. The Engineering Project R11 Organizational Journal, 1: 41-52. R12 Helms Mills, J. (2003). Making Sense of Organizational Change. London: Routledge. R13 Hercleaous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2008). Understanding Organizations through R14 Embodied Metaphors. Organization Studies, 29(1): 45-78. R15 Hibbert, P., & Huxham, C. (2010). The Past in Play: Tradition in the Structures of R16 Collaboration. Organization Studies, 31(05): 525-554. R17 Himmelman, A. T. (1996). On the Theory and Practice of Transformational R18 Collaboration: From Social Service to Social Justice. In C. Huxham (Ed.), R19 Creating Collaborative Advantage (19-43). London: Sage. R20 Hodgson, D., & Muzio, D. (2011). Prospects for professionalism in project management. R21 In P. W. G. Morris, J. K. Pinto & J. Söderlund (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of R22 Project Management (105-130). Oxford: Oxford University Press. R23 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work- R24 related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage. R25 Holden, N. (2008). Reflections of a Cross Cultural Scholar: Context and Language in R26 Management Thought. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, R27 8(2): 239-251. R28 Howland, J. (1982). Jim’s Little Yellow Book. Retrieved April 2010, from http://www. R29 careers.ch2m.com/assets/pdfs/LYB_English.pdf R30 Humphreys, M. (2005). Getting Personal: Reflexivity and Autoethnographic Vignettes. R31 Qualitative Inquiry, 11: 840-860. R32 R33 R34

326 References

Huxham, C. (1996). Collaboration and collaborative advantage. In C. Huxham (Ed.), R1 Creating Collaborative Advantage (1-18). London: Sage. R2 Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public Management Review, R3 5(3): 401-423. R4 Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in R5 collaboration. Human Relations, 53(6): 771-806. R6 Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2004). Doing Things Collaboratively: Realizing the R7 Advantage or Succumbing to Inertia? Organizational Dynamics, 33(2): 190- R8 201. R9 Impregilo (2011). Impregilo Group. Retrieved November 2011, from http://www. R10 impregilo.it R11 Ives, S. (Writer) (2010). TV Documentary on the Panama Canal, American Experience. R12 USA: PBS. R13 Jackson, T., & Aycan, Z. (2006). Editorial: From Cultural Values to Cross Cultural R14 Interfaces. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(1): 5-13. R15 Jacob, N. (2005). Cross-cultural investigations: emerging concepts. Journal of R16 Organizational Change, 18(5): 514-528. R17 Jacobsson, M., & Söderholm, A. (2011). Breaking out of the straitjacket of project R18 research: in search of contribution. International Journal of Managing R19 Projects in Business, 4(3): 378-388. R20 Jaén Suárez, O. (2011). Diez años de administración panameña del Canal. Panamá: R21 Autoridad de Canal de Panamá. R22 Jan de Nul (2011). Jan de Nul Group. Retrieved November 2011, from http://www. R23 jandenul.com R24 Jiménez, M. (2010). EE UU intentó evitar que Sacyr lograse las obras del Canal de R25 Panamá. El País, December 17, 2010. R26 Jones, C., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2008). Temporary inter-organizational projects: How R27 temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage R28 uncertainty. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham & P. Smith Ring (Eds.), R29 The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations (231-255). Oxford: R30 Oxford University Press. R31 R32 R33 R34

327 References

R1 Jordan, W. S., & Garrido, E. A. (2011). ACP aporta más de $7 mil millones al Estado en 13 años. La Prensa, August 3, 2011. R3 Josserand, E., Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. (2004). Friends or Foes? Practicing Collaboration - An Introduction. M@n@gement, 7(3): 37-45. R5 Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the right mix: unpacking R6 integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management R7 Journal, 10(9-33). R8 Kreiner, K. (1995). In search of revelance: project management in drifting R9 environments. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4): 335-346. R10 Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech R11 Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. R12 La Prensa (2011). Canal de Panamá establece récord en tránsito de tonelaje. La R13 Prensa, October 2, 2011. R14 Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and Institutional Work. In S. R. R15 Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organzition R16 studies (2nd ed., 215-254). London: Sage. R17 Leufkens, A., & Noorderhaven, N. (2010). Learning to collaborate in multi- R18 organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 29: 432-441. R19 Llacer, F. J. M. (2005). Panama Canal Management. Marine Policy, 29: 25-37. R20 Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. R21 Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4): 437-455. R22 Mahadevan, J. (2012). Are engineers religious? An interpretative approach of cross- R23 cultural conflict and collective identities. International Journal of Cross R24 Cultural Management, 12(1): 133-149. R25 Mäkilouko, M. (2004). Coping with multicultural projects: the leadership styles of R26 Finnish project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 22: R27 387-396. R28 Mayer, C.-H., & Louw, L. (2012). Managing cross-cultural conflict in organizations. R29 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(1): 3-8. R30 Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T., & Hodgson, D. (2006). From projectification to R31 programmification. International Journal of Project Management, 24: 663- R32 674. R33 R34

328 References

McCullough, D. (1977). The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama R1 Canal, 1870-1914. New York: Simon and Schuster. R2 Mears, A. (2011). Pricing Beauty: the making of a fashion model. Berkeley: University R3 of California Press. R4 Méndez, R. N. (2006). Cuatro razones para decir “no” a la ampliación. Retrieved R5 November, 2011, from http://cip3000.tripod.com/zIFax/xIFax18/index.html R6 Midler, C. (1995). “Projectification” of the Firm: The Renault Case. Scandinavian R7 Journal of Management, 11(4): 363-375. R8 Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredericks, D., & Yanow, D. (2009). Re-Turn to Practice: An R9 Introductory Essay. Organization Studies, 30(12): 1309-1327. R10 Molinsky, A. (2007). Cross-Cultural Code-Switching: The Psychological Challenges of R11 Adapting Behavior in Foreign Cultural Interactions. Academy of Management R12 Review, 32(2): 622-640. R13 Morris, P. (2010). Research and the future of project management. International R14 Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1): 139-146. R15 Morris, P., Pinto, J., & Söderlund, J. (2011). Introduction: Towards the third wave of R16 project management. In P. W. G. Morris, J. K. Pinto & J. Söderlund (Eds.), R17 The Ofxford Handbook of Project Management (1-11). Oxford: Oxford R18 University Pres. R19 Morris, P. W. G. (2011). A brief history of project management. In P. W. G. Morris, J. K. R20 Pinto & J. Söderlund (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management R21 (15-36). Oxford: Oxford University Press. R22 NGInfra. (2012). Next Generation Infrastructures. Retrieved October, 2012, from R23 http://www.nextgenerationinfrastructures.eu/ R24 Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming In and Out: Studying Practices by Switching Theoretical R25 Lenses and Trailing Connection. Organization Studies, 30(12): 1391-1418. R26 Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003a). Introduction. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi R27 & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach R28 (3-31). New York: M.E. Sharpe. R29 Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (Eds.). (2003b). Knowing in Organizations: A R30 Practice-Based Approach. Armonk: NY: Sharpe. R31 Noriegaville. (2006). Panama Canal Expansion: A senseless project. Available at ACP R32 Library. R33 R34

329 References

R1 Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Ricks, D. A. (2000). Research emphases on cutural differences and/or similarities. Are we asking the right questions. Journal of International R3 Management, 6: 173-186. Orlikowski, W. (2002). Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in R5 Distributed Organizing. Organizations Science, 13(3): 249-273. R6 Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and R7 philosophy. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge R8 Handbook of Strategy as Practice (23-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University R9 Press. R10 Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines : an ethnography of a modern job. London: R11 Cornell University Press. R12 Orr, J. E. (2006). Ten Years of Talking About Machines. Organization Studies, 27(12): R13 1805-1820. R14 Packendorff, J. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for R15 project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4): R16 319-333. R17 Parker, M. (2009). Panama Fever: The epic story of the building of the Panama Canal. R18 New York: Anchor Books. R19 Philips, N., Lawrence, T., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter-Organizational Collaboration and R20 the Dynamics of Institutional Fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37: R21 23-43. R22 Pitsis, T., Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. (2004). The Art of Managing Relationships in R23 Interorganizational Collaboration. M@n@gement, 7(3): 46-67. R24 Pitsis, T. S., Clegg, S. R., Marosszeky, M., & Rura-Polley, T. (2003). Constructing R25 the Olympic Dream: A Future Perfect Strategy of Project Management. R26 Organization Science, 14(5): 574-590. R27 Porras, A. E. (2005). Cultura de la interoceanidad: narrativas de la Identidad Nacional R28 de Panamá. Panamá: Editorial Universitaria “Carlos Manuel Gasteazoro”. R29 Primecz, H., Romani, L., & Sackmann, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cross-Cultural Management in R30 Practice: Culture and Negotiate Meanings. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. R31 Pryke, S., & Smyth, H. (2006). The Management of Complex Projects. A relationship R32 approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. R33 R34

330 References

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice. A guide for Social Science R1 Students and Researchers. London: SAGE Publication. R2 Roessingh, C. H., & Smits, K. C. M. (2010). Social Capital and Mennonite R3 Entrepreneurship: The case of Circle R. in Blue Creek, northern Belize. R4 International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 2(1/2): 22- R5 35. R6 Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the Worker: An R7 Account of a Research Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company, R8 Hawthorne Works, Chicago (10th ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard R9 University Press. R10 Rosales, M. R. (2007). The Panama Canal Expansion Project: Transit Maritime Mega R11 Project Development, Reactions, and Alternatives from Affected People. R12 University of Florida. R13 Sackmann, S. (1989). The Role of Metaphors in Organization Transformation. Human R14 Relations, 42(6): 463-485. R15 Sackmann, S. A., & Friesl, M. (2007). Exploring cultural impacts on knowledge R16 sharing behaviour in project teams - results from a simulation study. Journal R17 of Knowledge Management, 11(6): 142-156. R18 Sackmann, S. A., & Philips, M. E. (2004). Contextual Influences on Culture Research: R19 Shifting Assumptions for New Workplace Realities. International Journal of R20 Cross Cultural Management, 4(3): 370-390. R21 Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina R22 & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (1-14). R23 London: Routledge. R24 Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Von Savigny, E. (2001). The practice turn in R25 contemporary theory. London: Routledge. R26 Schwalbe, M. L., & Mason-Schrock, D. (1996). Identity work as group processes. R27 Avances in Group Processes, 13: 113-147. R28 Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2009). Reading and writing as method: in search R29 of trustworthy texts. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels & F. Kamsteeg (Eds.), R30 Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday life (56- R31 82). London: Sage. R32 R33 R34

331 References

R1 Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. New York: Routledge. R3 Shehata, S. (2006). Ethnography, Identity, and the Production of Knowledge. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and Method. New York: R5 M.E. Sharp. R6 Shimoni, B., & Bergmann, H. (2006). Managing in a Changing World: From R7 Multiculturalism to Hybridization-The production of Hybrid Management R8 Cultures in Israel, Thailand, and Mexico. Academy of Management R9 Perspectives, 20(3): 76-89. R10 Silverman, D. (2007). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about R11 qualitative research. London: Sage. R12 Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative R13 Science Quarterly, 28(3): 339-358. R14 Smits, K., Nabben, B., & Kok, A. (2009). Changing Borders in Blue Creek. In C. H. R15 Roessingh & T. Plasil (Eds.), Between Horse & Buggy and Four-Wheel Drive: R16 Change and Diversity among Mennonite Settlements in Belize, Central R17 America (73-96). Amsterdam: VU University Press. R18 Smits, K., & Van Marrewijk, A. (2012). Chaperoning: Practices of Collaboration in R19 the Panama Canal Expansion Program. International Journal of Managing R20 Projects in Business, 5(3): 440-456. R21 Søderberg, A.-M., & Holden, N. (2002). Rethinking Cross Cultural Management R22 in a Globalizing Business World. International Journal of Cross Cultural R23 Management, 2(1): 103-121. R24 Söderlund. (2004). Building theories of project management: past research, questions R25 for the future. International Journal of Project Management, 22: 183-191. R26 Soetenhorst, B. (2011). Het wonder van de Noord/Zuidlijn: het drama van de R27 Amsterdamse Metro. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker. R28 Sullivan, M. P. (2011). Panama: Political and Economic Conditions and U.S. Relations: R29 Congressional Research Service. R30 Swidler, A. (2001). What anchors cultural practices. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina R31 & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (74-92). R32 London: Routledge. R33 R34

332 References

Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., & DeFillippi, R. (2004). Project-Based Organizations, R1 Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge: Editorial. Organization R2 Studies, 25(9): 1475-1489. R3 The Panama News (2006). The campaign trail. The Panama News. R4 Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2010). On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational R5 Change. Organization Science, 13(5): 567-582. R6 Vaaland, T. I. (2004). Improving project collaboration: start with the conflicts. R7 International Journal of Project Management, 22: 447-454. R8 Vallarino, J., Galindo, S. L., & Brenes, C. (2007). Environmental Impact Study: Panama R9 Canal Expansion Project - Third Set of Locks. Panama City: URS Holdings, R10 Inc., University of Panama Foundation, University of Chiriqui Foundation. R11 Van der Waal, K. (2009). Getting Going: Organizing Ethnographic Fieldwork. In S. R12 Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels & F. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational Ethnography: R13 Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life (23-39). London: Sage. R14 Van der Wal, Z. (2008). Value Solidity: Differences, Similarities and Conflicts Between R15 the Organizational Values of Government and Business. VU University, R16 Amsterdam. R17 Van Gestel, N., Koppenjan, J., Schrijver, I., Van de ven, A., & Veeneman, W. (2008). R18 Managing Public Values in Public-Private Networks: A Comparative Study of R19 Innovative Public Infrastructure Projects. Public Money and Management, R20 28(3): 139-145. R21 Van Hulst, M. J. (2008). Town Hall Tales: Culture as storytelling in local government. R22 Delft: Eburon Publishers. R23 Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field. On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: The R24 University of Chicago Press. R25 Van Marrewijk, A. (2001). Internationalisation, cooperation and ethnicity in the R26 telecom sector. An ethnographic study of the cross-cultural collaboration R27 of PTT Telecom in Unisource, the Netherlands Antilles and Indonesia. Delft: R28 Eburon. R29 Van Marrewijk, A. (2005). Strategies of Cooperation, Control and Commitment in a R30 Mega Project. M@n@gement, 8(4): 89-104. R31 Van Marrewijk, A. (2007). Managing project culture: The Case of Environ Megaproject. R32 International Jourrnal of Project Management, 25: 290-299. R33 R34

333 References

R1 Van Marrewijk, A. (2009). Gezamenlijke Cultuurverschillen: De bedrijfsantropologie van crossculturele samenwerking in complexe projecten. Amsterdam: Vrije R3 Universiteit. Van Marrewijk, A. (2010a). European Developments in Business Anthropology. R5 International Journal of Business Anthropology, 1(1): 26-44. R6 Van Marrewijk, A. (2010b). Situational construction of Dutch-Indian cultural R7 differences in global IT projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26: R8 368-380. R9 Van Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S., Pitsis, T., & Veenswijk, M. (2008). Managing public- R10 private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. R11 International Journal of Project Management, 26: 591-600. R12 Van Marrewijk, A., & Veenswijk, M. (2006). The Culture of Project Management. R13 Understanding Daily Life in Complex Megaprojects. London: Prentice Hall/ R14 Financial Times. R15 Van Marrewijk, A., Veenswijk, M., & Clegg, S. (2010). Organizing reflexivity in the R16 designed change: the ethnoventionist approach. Journal of Organizational R17 Change, 23(4): 212-229. R18 Van Marrewijk, A., & Yanow, D. (Eds.). (2010). Organizational Spaces: Rematerializing R19 the Workaday World. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers. R20 Vangen, S., & Huxam, C. (2011). The Tangled Web: Unraveling the Principle of R21 Common Goals in Collaborations. Journal of Public Administration Research R22 and Theory. R23 Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Enacting Leadership for Collaborative Advantage: R24 Dilemmas of Ideology and Pragmatism in the Activities of Partnership R25 Managers. Britisch Journal of Management, 14: S61-S76. R26 Veeneman, W., Dicke, W., & De Bruijne, M. (2009). From clouds to hailstorms: a R27 policy and administrative science perspective on safeguarding public values R28 in networded infrastructures. International Journal of Public Policy, 4(3): R29 226-246. R30 Veenswijk, M., & Berendse, M. (2008). Constructing new working pratices R31 through project narratives. International Journal Project Organisation and R32 Management, 1(1): 65-85. R33 R34

334 References

Venkatesh, S. (2008). Gang Leader for A Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the R1 Streets. New York: The Penguin Press. R2 Versteijlen, P. (2010). Report Industrial Practice at the Panama Canal Authority. Delft R3 University of Technology, Delft. R4 Warrack, A. (1993). Megaproject Decision Making: Lessons and Strategies. Western R5 Centre for Economic Research (Information Bulletin #16). R6 Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing (2nd ed.). Addison Wesley: R7 Reading Massachusets. R8 Weick, K. E. (1999). Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the R9 90s. Academy of Management Review, 24: 797-806. R10 Weick, K. E. (2002). Essai: Real-Time Reflexivity: Prods to Reflection. Organization R11 Studies, 23(6): 893-898. R12 Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of R13 Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4): 409-421. R14 Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from Strangers. New York: The Free Press. R15 Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as Practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5): 731-735. R16 Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research. R17 Organization Studies, 27(5): 613-634. R18 Wikileaks (2010). Cable en que miembros del Gobierno panameño expresan duda R19 sobre la capacacidad de Sacyr. El País, December 17, 2010. R20 Winch, G., Millar, C., & Clifton, N. (1997). Culture and Organization: The Case of R21 Transmache-Link. Britisch Journal of Management, 8: 237-249. R22 Winner, D. (2007). CUSA wins first Canal Expansion Construction Bid. Retrieved R23 November 2011, from http://www.panama-guide.com/article. R24 php/20070707060323142 R25 Winner, D. (2011). Panama Canal has paid $7 billion dollars to State Treasury over R26 13 years. Retrieved November 2011, from http://www.panama-guide.com/ R27 article.php/20110803141054989 R28 Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research R29 in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded R30 research network. International Journal of Project Management, 24: 638- R31 649. R32 R33 R34

335 References

R1 Yanow, D. (2006). Thinking Interpretively: Philosophical Presuppositions and the Human Sciences. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and R3 Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretative Turn (5-26). New York: M.E. Sharpe. R5 Yanow, D., & Geuijen, K. (2009). Annotated Bibliography: definging ‘organizational R6 ethnography’ selection criteria. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels & F. R7 Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational Ethnography. London: Sage. R8 Yanow, D., & Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection-in-action? A phenomenological R9 account. Journal of Management studies. R10 Ybema, S., & Byun, H. (2009). Cultivating Cultural Difference in Assymmetric Power R11 Relations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(9): 339- R12 358. R13 Ybema, S., & Kamsteeg, F. (2009). Making the familiar strange: A case for disengaged R14 organizational ethnography. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels & F. Kamsteeg R15 (Eds.), Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday R16 Life. London: Sage. R17 Ybema, S., Vroemisse, M., & Van Marrewijk, A. (2012). Constructing identity by R18 deconstructing differences: Building partnerships across cultural and R19 hierarchical divides. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28: 48-59. R20 Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H., & Kamsteeg, F. (2009). Organizational Ethnography: R21 Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. London: Sage R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

336 About the Author

About the Author R1 R2 Karen Smits was born on June 17, 1982, in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands. In R3 2003, after conducting research on organizational culture during the merger of three R4 public organizations, she finished her undergraduate studies in Human Resource R5 Management at the Hogeschool ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands. She then R6 worked in the field of Human Resources and traveled in South East Asia and South R7 America. In 2005 she started the Pre-master’s program on Culture, Organization and R8 Management at VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Karen obtained her R9 Master’s degree with a study on entrepreneurship among the Mennonites in Blue R10 Creek, Belize, in 2008. In that same year she started as a Ph.D. Candidate at the R11 Department of Culture, Organization and Management, which later merged into the R12 Department of Organization Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University R13 Amsterdam. R14 R15 Karen’s research revolves around relationships and processes within and between R16 organizations. Particularly, she is interested in collaboration, culture and behavior. R17 How people make sense of the cultural complexity in their everyday work life is R18 a primary interest in her academic work. During the Ph.D. project she presented R19 her study at different international conferences, taught in various academic courses R20 and mentored several students in the completion of their Master’s thesis projects. R21 Currently, Karen works as a researcher and advisor in the Latin America region. R22 She supports organizational members in developing cross-cultural collaboration, R23 organizational change and growth initiatives. She has also been hired for research R24 projects that unravel employee experiences and distinguish lessons learned. R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

337 R1

R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34

338 NGInfra PhD Thesis Series on Infrastructures

NGInfra PhD Thesis Series on Infrastructures R1 R2 1. Strategic behavior and regulatory styles in the Netherlands energy industry R3 Martijn Kuit, 2002, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R4 2. Securing the public interest in electricity generation markets, The myths of the R5 invisible hand and the copper plate R6 Laurens de Vries, 2004, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R7 3. Quality of service routing in the internet: theory, complexity and algorithms R8 Fernando Kuipers, 2004, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R9 4. The role of power exchanges for the creation of a single European electricity R10 market: market design and market regulation R11 François Boisseleau, 2004, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands, and R12 University of Paris IX Dauphine, France. R13 5. The ecology of metals R14 Ewoud Verhoef, 2004, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R15 6. MEDUSA, Survivable information security in critical infrastructures R16 Semir Daskapan, 2005,Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R17 7. Transport infrastructure slot allocation R18 Kaspar Koolstra, 2005, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R19 8. Understanding open source communities: an organizational perspective R20 Ruben van Wendel de Joode, 2005, Delft University of Technology, the R21 Netherlands. R22 9. Regulating beyond price, integrated price-quality regulation for electricity R23 distribution networks R24 Viren Ajodhia, 2006, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R25 10. Networked Reliability, Institutional fragmentation and the reliability of service R26 provision in critical infrastructures R27 Mark de Bruijne, 2006, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R28 11. Regional regulation as a new form of telecom sector governance: the interactions R29 with technological socio-economic systems and market performance R30 Andrew Barendse, 2006, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R31 R32 R33 R34

339 NGInfra PhD Thesis Series on Infrastructures

R1 12. The Internet bubble - the impact on the development path of the telecommunications sector R3 Wolter Lemstra, 2006, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. 13. Multi-agent model predictive control with applications to power networks R5 Rudy Negenborn, 2007, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R6 14. Dynamic bi-level optimal toll design approach for dynamic traffic networks R7 Dusica Joksimovic, 2007, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R8 15. Intertwining uncertainty analysis and decision-making about drinking water R9 infrastructure R10 Machtelt Meijer, 2007, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R11 16. The new EU approach to sector regulation in the network infrastructure R12 industries R13 Richard Cawley, 2007, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R14 17. A functional legal design for reliable electricity supply, How technology affects R15 law R16 Hamilcar Knops, 2008, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands and R17 Leiden University, the Netherlands. R18 18. Improving real-rime train dispatching: models, algorithms and applications R19 Andrea D’Ariano, 2008, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R20 19. Exploratory modeling and analysis: A promising method to deal with deep R21 uncertainty R22 Datu Buyung Agusdinata, 2008, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R23 20. Characterization of complex networks: application to robustness analysis R24 Almerima Jamaković, 2008, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the R25 Netherlands. R26 21. Shedding light on the black hole, The roll-out of broadband access networks by R27 private operators R28 Marieke Fijnvandraat, 2008, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the R29 Netherlands. R30 22. On stackelberg and inverse stackelberg games & their applications in the R31 optimal toll design problem, the energy markets liberalization problem, and in R32 the theory of incentives R33 Kateřina Staňková, 2009, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. R34

340 NGInfra PhD Thesis Series on Infrastructures

23. On the conceptual design of large-scale process & energy infrastructure systems: R1 integrating flexibility,reliability, availability,maintainability and economics R2 (FRAME) performance metrics R3 Austine Ajah, 2009, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. R4 24. Comprehensive models for security analysis of critical infrastructure as complex R5 systems R6 Fei Xue, 2009, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy. R7 25. Towards a single European electricity market, A structured approach for R8 regulatory mode decision-making R9 Hanneke de Jong, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R10 26. Co-evolutionary process for modelling large scale socio-technical systems R11 evolution R12 Igor Nikolić, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R13 27. Regulation in splendid isolation: A framework to promote effective and efficient R14 performance of the electricity industry in small isolated monopoly systems R15 Steven Martina, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R16 28. Reliability-based dynamic network design with stochastic networks R17 Hao Li, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R18 29. Competing public values R19 Bauke Steenhuisen, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R20 30. Innovative contracting practices in the road sector: cross-national lessons in R21 dealing with opportunistic behaviour R22 Mónica Altamirano, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R23 31. Reliability in urban public transport network assessment and design R24 Shahram Tahmasseby, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R25 32. Capturing socio-technical systems with agent-based modelling R26 Koen van Dam, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R27 33. Road incidents and network dynamics, Effects on driving behaviour and traffic R28 congestion R29 Victor Knoop, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R30 34. Governing mobile service innovation in co-evolving value networks R31 Mark de Reuver, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R32 R33 R34

341 NGInfra PhD Thesis Series on Infrastructures

R1 35. Modelling risk control measures in railways Jaap van den Top, 2009, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R3 36. Smart heat and power: Utilizing the flexibility of micro cogeneration Michiel Houwing, 2010, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R5 37. Architecture-driven integration of modeling languages for the design of R6 software-intensive systems R7 Michel dos Santos Soares, 2010, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R8 38. Modernization of electricity networks: Exploring the interrelations between R9 institutions and technology R10 Martijn Jonker, 2010, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R11 39. Experiencing complexity: A gaming approach for understanding infrastructure R12 Geertje Bekebrede, 2010, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R13 40. Epidemics in Networks: Modeling, Optimization and Security Games. Technology R14 Jasmina Omić, 2010, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R15 41. Designing Robust Road Networks: A general method applied to the Netherlands R16 Maaike Snelder, 2010, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R17 42. Simulating Energy Transitions R18 Emile Chappin, 2011, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R19 43. De ingeslagen weg. Een dynamisch onderzoek naar de dynamiek van de R20 uitbesteding van onderhoud in de civiele infrastructuur. R21 Rob Schoenmaker, 2011, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands R22 44. Safety Management and Risk Modeling in Aviation: the challenge of quantifying R23 management influences. R24 Pei-Hui Lin, 2011, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. R25 45. Transportation modelling for large-scale evacuations R26 Adam J. Pel, 201,1 Delft University of Technology, Delft R27 46. Clearing the road for ISA Implementation?: Applying Adaptive Policymaking for R28 the Implementation of Intelligent Speed Adaptation R29 Jan-Willem van der Pas, 2011, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands R30 47. Design and decision-making for multinational electricity balancing markets. R31 Reinier van der Veen, 2012, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands R32 R33 R34

342 NGInfra PhD Thesis Series on Infrastructures

48. Understanding socio-technical change. A system-network-agent approach. R1 Catherine Chiong Meza, 2012, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands R2 49. National design and multi-national integration of balancing markets. Alireza R3 Abbasy, 2012, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands R4 50. Regulation of Gas Infrastructure Expansion. Jeroen de Joode, 2012, Delft R5 University of Technology, The Netherlands R6 51. Governance Structures of Free/Open Source Software Development. Examining R7 the role of modular product design as a governance mechanism in the FreeBSD R8 Project. George Dafermos, 2012, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands R9 52. Making Sense of Open Data – From Raw Data to Actionable Insight. Chris Davis, R10 2012, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands R11 53. Intermodal Barge Transport: Network Design, Nodes and Competitiveness. R12 Rob Konings, 2009, Delft University of Technology, Trail Research School, the R13 Netherlands R14 54. Handling Disruptions in Supply Chains: An integrated Framework and an R15 Agent-based Model. Behzad Behdani, 2013, Delft University of Technology, the R16 Netherlands R17 55. Images of cooperation – a methodological exploration in energy networks. R18 Andreas Ligtvoet, 2013, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands R19 56. Robustness and Optimization of Complex Networks: Spectral analysis, Modeling R20 and Algorithms, Dajie Liu, 2013, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands R21 57. Wegen door Brussel: Staatssteun en publieke belangen in de vervoersector, R22 Nienke Saanen, 2013, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands R23 58. The Flexible Port, Poonam Taneja, 2013, Delft University of Technology, The R24 Netherlands R25 59. Transit-Oriented Development in China; How can it be planned in complex R26 urban systems?, Rui Mu, 2013, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands R27 60. Cross Culture Work: Practices of Collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion R28 Program, Karen Smits, 2013, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands R29 R30 Order information: [email protected] R31 R32 R33 R34

343