Collaboration: Coercive pressures

If mimetic pressures are not strong enough for implementing change for collaborative progress, other pressures may provide greater institutional change drivers. The data showed that collaboration could be enforced via technological methods such as BIM. The BIM process is highly applicable to increased collaboration in the construction industry (Hardin, 2011). As a key component of information management, the government’s advocacy of BIM software could act as a coercive pressure enforcing greater collaboration through obligatory technological integration (Coelho and Novaes, 2008; Singh, et al., 2011; HM Government, 2012). Enforcing collaborative processes from the conception of the project via government backed sources could have major benefits for the development of low carbon decision making (Basbagill et al., 2013). There was a distinct acknowledgement of the benefits of collaboration and how it could be achieved in the data. The implicit success factor was the implementation of collaborative processes via the government’s insistence on the use of BIM, despite an appreciation of the difficulties which this would present:

[BIM] ‘I mean the Government wants it to be I think going to a unified model run off of servers where everybody can access this at one time. I think that's a bit of a long way off.’ (Architect, supply chain position 3)

Collaborative construction could be secured as an integral part of the construction industry through coercive pressures for BIM implementation, but only if the government enforces its

183 use. Although initially expected to become legislatively enforced, the government changed its use to public buildings where appropriate (HM Government, 2012). The coercive drivers for the implementation of new systems could aid the diffusion of low carbon strategy. If companies are forced into taking certain actions then the uptake of innovation would be rapid as regulatory requirements would enforce uptake. Collaborative pressure was considered to be an underlying concept:

‘No, it doesn't happen enough. There are … it's being encouraged but, again, it's … I think it's just such a lumbering beast that's been going on … that's been doing things the way its been doing them for so long, it's very hard. Recent Government schemes that have tried to encourage collaboration have all been focused on the economy.’ (Environmental consultant, supply chain position 3)

The evidence above highlights the underlying benefits of collaboration in construction which could be highly beneficial for CO2 analysis. Emphasis has been placed on the economy, as

the government’s focus on collaborative structures have been put in place for economic advancement which is still considered to take precedence over sustainability issues in construction (Abanda et al., 2013; Hu and He, 2014). Coercive pressures which enforce collaboration on sustainability have proven to be one of the most successful ways to reduce emissions (Interdonto, 2012). As an essential component for the diffusion of innovative products, new concepts could gain momentum through greater communication flow. The diffusion process relies upon personal influences within and outside businesses which can encourage others to adopt strategies (Gatignon and Robertson, 1985). Additionally Rogers’ (1971) notion of diffusion providing a form of social change could be readily applied to the transformation in social dynamics required for increased collaboration in construction. In a collaborative system the client would need to be open to influence and other members of the supply chain would be required to surpass social norms of singular achievements and work together overcoming barriers of mistrust. Cohesive action works against the traditional structures of the supply chain system whereby supply chain actors work for their own benefits alone, often driven by greed as discussed in the findings:

‘Yes, I mean, it's a fantastic idea, yes, and it's the … yes, it's a great idea. On paper it works. It ticks all the right boxes. But I think it's … its problem is that greed is so embedded in the industry that it's hard to get people … you need trust for people to work like that.’ (Environmental consultant, supply chain position 3).

Participants argued that traditional values have been embedded in the construction industry for a significant period of time. Construction companies are primarily driven by cost and

184 competition; coercive pressures which are secured by traditional supply chain structures and industry values, the product of which has been a reticent industry (Hu and He, 2014). Associated coercive pressures such as supply chain structure, competition and cost appear to have inhibited the sharing of information and the diffusion of innovative strategies. Construction companies have continued to work in fiercely competitive fragmentised compartments where profits are the only consideration to the detriment of innovation (Havenvid, 2015). Innovation must lead to profitability and considerations in innovation are almost always governed by the nature of previous advancement (Brown, 1981). If governmental pressures were placed on the industry to collaborate more, then collaborative measures could be implemented to aid the development of the low carbon decision making process assuming clients were leading the implementation:

‘Yes. If it's used in the right way and as part of that collaboration platform, yes, that's exactly right, if BIM is used on every project… the Government have got to say well this is the way it is, we have to do it.’ (Consultant, supply chain position 3)

[collaboration] ‘Is something…we have to start getting a handle on, and that our clients will expect it of us in the future as a number of market leading clients would have incorporated this in to their requirements for certain contracts and bids and tenders.’ (Mechanical and electrical engineer, supply chain position 3)

Coercing and enforcing construction project teams to actively seek collaborative networks for all aspects of the building including carbon emissions data would require client leadership to ensure its successful integration into contracts. Having the ability to collaborate and integrate the supply chain is essential for low carbon decision making (Love, et al., 1999; Cheng, et al., 2001; Love, et al., 2004). If enforced it could encourage greater carbon data sharing enabling the project team to make more informed low carbon choices. Additionally, short term project lifespans add to the difficulties associated with construction collaboration and innovation diffusion - a coercive pressure beyond the industry’s control (Dubois and Gadde, 2002).

Short lifespans inhibit long term collaborative plans and ultimately the retainment of organisational memory (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). The prevention of knowledge transfer means that information is lost, a notion implicit in the data findings. Participants discussed each project as conceptual prototypes whereby knowledge was not openly transferred between project parties who endure short relationships (Songip et al., 2013). Collaborative processes do not have the ability to mature which restricts the diffusion of new processes as relationships will not progress beyond single projects. Relationships are critical to the

185 diffusion of innovation as influence is essential for widespread adoption of products, processes and strategies (Gatgnon and Robertson, 1983). In the current system, it could be argued that due to institutional pressures which hold traditional structures in place the diffusion of innovation is difficult. Long term relationships are scarce, supply chains are fragmented and collaborative influence is lacking which amass to form significant barriers to the diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1971). Furthermore, the lack of client demand for low carbon innovation is apparent. The power of the client in the chain is critical to the failures of low carbon decision making as the key decision maker and project lead. The role of client power explained through institutional pressures is explored in the following section.

5.7. Client power