The Constitutive Role of Conventions in Accomplishing Coordination: Insights from a Complex Contract Award Project

Introduction

Coordination—the process of managing interdependence and fitting together different activities—has been a key topic in Organization Theory (Crowston, 1997; Heath & Staudenmayer, 2000). Coordination was originally thought of as an organizational design problem: one of matching formal coordination mechanisms (e.g., plans, rules, hierarchies, etc.) with levels of interdependence (e.g., pooled, sequential and reciprocal) (Thompson, 1967) among organizational departments or actors needing to align their activities (Galbraith, 1974; Grandori, 1997; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; March & Simon, 1958; Van de Ven, Delbecq, & Koenig, 1976). More recently, research attention has shifted towards examining what people actually do to coordinate (Bechky, 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Carlile, 2002; Faraj & Xiao, 2006; Hemetsberger & Reinhardt, 2009; Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Feldman, 2012; Kellogg, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2006; Levina, 2005; Levina & Vaast, 2005; Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa, & Hollingshead, 2007; Majchrzak, More, & Faraj, 2012). This new wave of research has shown that merely designing formal structures is inadequate for coordinating different actions. Coordination needs to be conceived not only in terms of structures, but also as an effortful mode of coordinating (Jarzabkowski et al., 2012). This recent literature has focused on coordination efforts within local trajectories of interdependent actions in organizations (e.g., how coordination happens on a project, or within routines) (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009). It has shown that coordination constitutes a: “temporally unfolding and contextualized process of input regulation and interaction articulation to realize a collective performance” (Faraj & Xiao, 2006, p. 1157). As a dynamic activity, coordination entails a particular type of agency oriented towards preventing and reacting to problems of aligning interdependent activities on local tasks.

This article builds upon and extends this emerging literature by exploring how coordinating dynamics may be molded by broader objectives of large-scale integration. The paper aims to examine and explain how the activity of coordinating may grapple with interdependencies, which are related not only to objectives of getting tasks done but also making local tasks compatible with overarching objectives (e.g., policy coordination, orchestrated delivery of complex megaprojects). I argue that organizational actors experience such objectives as generating “external” interdependencies. Think, for example, how the task of designing a product may also need to address linkages—such as future customer preferences, supplier expectations or regulatory demands. These interdependencies constitute a different sort of complexity that arises beyond or after the objective of getting local tasks done. This is so because elements or outputs of work need to be plugged into other supra-tasks and circulate across different spaces.

A diverse body of organization studies has underscored the importance of interdependencies stemming from broader expectations and investments within common worlds of production (Becker, 1984; Storper & Salais, 1997). Examples of such expectations and investments include: Moore’s Law in the semi-conductor industry (Howard-Grenville & Carlile, 2006); procedures to coordinate projects across time and space to achieve integration of highly complex technical systems (Orlikowski, 2002); standards of evidence production to advance science (Cambrosio, Keating, Schlich, & Weisz, 2006); Quality Assurance standards (Boiral, 2007; Brunsson, Rasche, & Seidl, 2012; Thévenot, 2009). While there is no dearth of accounts of external interdependencies in organizations, we still know little about how they matter in situated coordination accomplishments. It is doubtful that coordinating locally (e.g., through teamwork or knowledge sharing across departments; Adler, 1995) is enough to cope with such interdependencies. Hence, there is an empirical gap, which this research seeks to address: How do organizational actors coordinate to manage external interdependencies in practice? Furthermore, we need to spell out conceptually whether and how accomplishing coordination under conditions of external interdependence may constitute a distinctive form of activity. Empirical investigation on its own, though vital, is not enough if one is to move beyond contingent differences in empirical patterns and conceptualize how modes of coordinating may differ in kind. We need to explore and further explain the distinctive role of agency in coordinating. Hence, there is a theoretical gap, prompting the question: In what sense might coordinating to cope with external interdependencies constitute a distinct form of activity?

The contribution this paper makes is to elucidate how coordinating is accomplished in the face of multiple task-specific and external interdependencies. To develop a theoretical account, I first draw upon the under-explored in organization studies, Convention Theory, which helps us to distinguish conceptually between coordination modes, depending on the kind of complexity experienced by organizational actors (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1999, 2006; Thévenot, 1984, 2001a, 2001b, 2002). According to Convention Theory, to address external interdependencies, which arise from the deliberate pursuit of large-scale integration, ¹ organizational actors rely on and mobilize conventions. Conventions, understood as explicit (technologies of) representations with extended validity, equip actors to represent stable connections across a broad spectrum of activities and address a knowledge problem (knowing what kind of linkages exist among activities). In addition, conventions enable actors to evaluate and make their efforts compatible beyond the “here and now” through the development of relevant proofs (Thévenot, 2002) and address an evidence problem—namely, the challenge of contributing to abstract objectives of large-scale integration.

Second, the paper elaborates on these arguments by studying coordination dynamics empirically in a setting where a project team recognizes and copes with a plurality of external interdependencies. I present findings from a complex contracting process, which was undertaken in the context of a major construction project in the UK, the so-called Theta project (a pseudonym). I show how Theta members strove to mobilize multiple conventions in addressing external interdependencies associated with the year-long delivery of the project as well as with European Union (EU) procurement policies. Findings from my empirical investigation demonstrate the versatility of organizational actors in coordinating to both get their task done (awarding the contract), and, at the same time, create intermediate outputs—evidence demonstrating how external interdependencies have been accounted for. These results exemplify a distinctive coordination mode, grounded on the situated mobilization of conventions, and advance our understanding of how coordination may be accomplished in organizations.

Recent Organizational Studies of Coordination

The coordination problem, in its simplest form, arises from the division of labor, that is to say, the decomposition of an overall task into subtasks, and the need to align and assemble together all sub-activities to create an integrated whole (Heath & Staudenmayer, 2000). For example, to develop a new piece of software, different task components are assigned to different engineers, who need to not only complete their individual tasks but also make sure that their dispersed efforts will gradually/eventually be fitted together to create an integrated outcome. While earlier scholars conceived coordination as a design problem (e.g., developing plans or sequencing arrangements), recent research has shown that coordination is an emergent process, which is always “in the making” (Kellogg et al., 2006; Jarzabkowski et al., 2012). Empirical studies suggest that task-specific interdependencies among activities are not given but are continually shifting as well as negotiated and reframed in the context of work (Kellogg et al., 2006). While coordination may well involve planning (Crowston, 1997; Crowston & Kammerer, 1998), most coordination challenges are emergent and dealt with through situated processes of knowledge sharing and on-going communication (Bechky, 2003b, 2006; Carlile, 2002; Ewenstein & Whyte, 2009; Levina, 2005; Scarbrough et al., 2004; Swan et al., 2007). Vital coordination work is accomplished when actors interact with one another to address interdependence on an unfolding trajectory of collective action; for example, making sure that flight departures are efficient (Gittell, 2001), or that the development of a new product is on target (Carlile, 2002). In an interactionally constituted and negotiated space (Star, 2010)—what some scholars refer to as boundaries (Carlile, 2002, 2004; Levina, 2005) or intersections of occupational communities (Bechky 2003a, 2003b)—actors coordinate their different actions by exchanging objects, reaffirming or challenging relations and render their contributions available to one another. Further, when novelty arises, actors may become uncertain about what knowledge needs to be shared and how, and focus on reassessing how they coordinate (Carlile, 2002; Levina, 2005).

A growing number of scholars suggests that coordinating is a form of practical activity mediated by resources, such as plans and rules, roles and routines, as well as objects (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009) and the materiality of interactional encounters (Fayard & Weeks, 2007). Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, Okhuysen and Bechky (2009) further argue that coordination is a distinctive accomplishment by virtue of three foundational conditions: accountability, predictability and shared understanding. In brief, actors are able to coordinate by identifying themselves and others as socially accountable to the group (or set of groups), which is responsible for executing a collective task. They strive to show, in the process of work, which part they are playing and ascertain their contributions through their actual performances and interactions. Actors also formulate expectations of how one’s task fits into the whole over time and when different elements are fitted together. Finally, to accomplish coordination, interdependent actors create a common perspective of, and orientation to, the content and process of a collective task. They draw on some common knowledge, which is elaborated, negotiated and often expanded in the process of managing task interdependencies (Carlile 2002, 2004). Coordination, the literature suggests, rests on a tacit, collectively enacted competence to recognize and monitor critical interdependencies in a task (Weick & Roberts, 1993), while the validity of “how we coordinate” is generally implicit and locally defined. ²

Undoubtedly, thanks to in-depth, ethnographic studies in settings where high interaction is needed and the exchange of information is ongoing, we have learned a lot more about how coordination is accomplished under conditions of (usually high or emerging) task interdependence. Examples of such settings are emergency response teams, new product development groups, and film projects. Under such conditions the predominant coordination concern is to realize a collective, temporally unfolding and locally enacted performance. For example, when a patient walks into a trauma center, different healthcare professionals (e.g., physicians and nurses) need to coordinate their expertise to stabilize a patient and decide on a suitable treatment plan (Faraj & Xiao, 2006). Expertise interdependence (e.g., among physicians and nurses) and the need to coordinate cease to exist when the main objective has been met, for example, the patient recovers and is discharged. As the example implies, coordinating to manage task interdependencies has a particular time horizon (i.e., task completion) and coordination outcomes can be evaluated in relation to an unfolding trajectory of actions. In essence, coordination accomplishments are temporally experienced (coordination has pace) and evaluated with regards to progression towards, or deviation from, a local goal (get a task done).

The Emergence of “External” Interdependencies

Task-specific interdependencies differ significantly from those underpinning pursuits of large-scale integration observed in industries, economies or very large projects, but in what ways? What do such pursuits entail? What challenges may organizational actors face when pursuing deliberately large-scale integration? Think, for example, how the delivery of a complex construction project (e.g., an Olympic stadium) requires the coordination of a host of activities, such as designing architectural drawings, planning the construction activities, accomplishing the building works, sourcing relevant materials, and so on. The systematic joining together of these activities needs to be effected across time (over a number of years in many cases) and space (e.g., at designers’ studios, meeting rooms, construction sites, etc.). This creates two important challenges. The first pertains to what could be labeled the knowledge challenge. Different actors need to be capable of knowing how their actions are interdependent with other actions, which are situated across time and space. By that, I do not only mean that activities are asynchronous, i.e., occurring at different points in time, and/or are not co-located, but that the spatial-temporal distance among coordinating parties is overwhelming and unbridgeable through physical means; boundaries across situations are profound. For example, designing a building, prior to its actual construction, is overwhelmingly distanced from the maintenance of that building following its construction. Unlike most everyday organizational tasks and routines, boundaries across these activities cannot be reassessed through more interaction (if integration proves problematic). Under such conditions, the major challenge for actors is to have the capacity to know interdependencies across such a spectrum and in such a way so as to confidently contribute to large-scale objectives (e.g., buildings that are much easier to maintain).

The second challenge pertains to what could be called the evidence problem. Upon recognizing external (to a specific task) interdependencies, actors need to devise a response and be capable of evaluating their contributions to an overarching objective of large-scale integration and without having the possibility to receive feedback (due to the spatial-temporal distance). For instance, in the previous example, the activity of designing a building is assessed wholly autonomously with regards to its contributions to the overarching objective of extended integration (e.g., designing a building for maintainability). The major challenge then for actors concerned to coordinate their actions across time and space is to devise a coordinated response when the outcome, i.e., actual contribution, manifests itself in an overwhelmingly distant future or location.

So far, little is understood about how the pursuit of large-scale integration (e.g., on technically complex megaprojects [Argyres, 1999] or for extended policy coordination) ³ molds local coordination processes. We do not know a lot about how “external” interdependencies arising from such pursuits play a role in situated efforts to coordinate work. The vocabulary in existing organizational literature is currently unsuited to explore this relation, since its focus is on settings where task interdependence is very high and external interdependencies do not become salient. In what follows, I draw upon Convention Theory and propose to use it as an analytical apparatus to study coordinating.

Using Convention Theory to Study Coordination

I turn to Convention Theory (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1983, 1999, 2006; Desrosieres, 2001; Thévenot, 1984, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2007, 2009) for two reasons. First, Convention Theory focuses on and analyses situated efforts for identifying, interpreting and coping with complexity of large-scale coordination (Thévenot, 2001a, 2002), which lie at the heart of my research questions. Second, it avoids reducing such emergent engagements to the influence of structural entities in the “macro” sphere (e.g., structures, stable institutional orders or schemata) (Patriotta, Gond, & Schultz, 2011). Unlike most neo-institutional approaches, which examine actions as conforming to a greater or lesser extent to institutional meanings and orders, Convention Theory refrains from explaining coordination after its apparent accomplishment (after a pattern of action can be retrospectively discerned by a researcher). Adopting a pragmatist approach, Convention Theory considers coordination dynamics—the process of accomplishment itself as it unfolds in concrete scenes of action—as the primary unit of analysis (Wagner, 1994, 1999). As Thévenot put it (2001a, p. 406): “The characterization of modes of coordination should point to their dynamics, not to their resulting orders”. This sensitivity ties in well with the emphasis on emergent coordination in recent organizational literature.

So what can we learn from Convention Theory about coordination and the coping with “external” interdependencies? Convention theorists observed that actors pursue large-scale coordination, and, consequently, deal with external interdependencies by relying on explicit cognitive representations, what they call “conventions”. One should note that conventions differ from other group-specific representations (e.g., collective mind) in three important ways. First, they allow actors to extend spatial and temporal validity of their activities (Thévenot, 2009). Actors mobilize conventions to gain confidence that their interpretations can be found valid by others over time and across physical boundaries (address the knowledge challenge). Second, conventions are explicit and rigid in the sense that some solid, material (broadly defined) equipment (e.g., models, formalizations, or standards) immobilizes a convention, guarantees its stability and hence its extended validity. The notion of explicitness does not mean that actors always give reasons and refer overtly to a formal agreement, but that some equipment exists to explicate relationships among categories. Third, conventions create equivalences among situations, objects or problems, and render stable associations across these possible and explicit (making such equivalences externally verifiable and free from idiosyncrasies). By virtue of these characteristics, conventions mediate expectations of how large-scale coordination can be achieved in the absence of interactions (Foss & Lorenzen, 2009; Kogut & Zander, 1996; Schelling, 1960) and can yield remarkable rewards, especially when an extended “networks of cooperation” (e.g., the field of art) draws on a commonly agreed set of conventions (Becker, 1984).

There are numerous examples suggesting that humans have deliberately developed explicit conventions (Desrosieres, 2001; Ponte & Gibbon, 2005; Thévenot, 2009), the standard time being an example of convention par excellence (Bartky, 1989; Thévenot, 1984; Zerubavel, 1982). Before the fabrication of the explicit convention of standard time, time was locally defined; different regions used to have their own measures of time, which were based on the particular location of the sun, i.e., solar time (Zerubavel, 1982). Anchored to scientific principles and built into material equipment (e.g., clocks), standard time as an explicit representation mediates a process of building equivalence across diverse, local temporal realities (time as it is experienced in particular contexts). ⁴ Conventions are then fabricated and raised on the limits of locally valid and context-specific knowledge (Thévenot, 2001a). When, for whatever reason, connections across highly disparate situations need to be known in order to pursue large-scale coordination, we can observe a quest to agree upon and establish conventions to give stable form to interdependence (Thévenot, 2009).

Mobilizing conventions

It would be a mistake to view the notion of conventions used in this work as yet another explanatory construct to explain regularity and social order. Conventions are not concepts, which organizational analysts use to explain patterns, but rather, representations-equipment used by actors concerned to coordinate with distant others and to know of, and deal with, external interdependencies. This process entails adopting a particular stance towards a situation at hand, which unfolds as follows. Actors’ practical concern is to probe and recognize the situation at hand in ways that overcome idiosyncrasies, which would be incomprehensible to distant others (not immersed in the same situations). In Thévenot’s words (2001b, p. 79): “When large-scale coordination is needed … the dynamics of coordination require a reflexive and judgmental stance which can be viewed in terms of the horizon of a third party.” The concern of the actor is to avoid incoherence of actions—proof of failure to coordinate with others, who are not present, yet matter in seeking such coordination.

Furthermore, actors seek ways to grasp the situation at hand as conventionally formatted and as an external object with stable properties inherited from an explicit system of representation: a formalized convention. This may be understood as a process of seeing their context through the eyes of an impartial observer (Tsoukas, 2010)—the assumed identity of all other parties with a stake or role in large-scale coordination. Conventions equip actors to recognize their local situations (e.g., their locally experienced sense of time) on the basis of a principle of equivalence with extended validity (e.g., time as defined universally). This quest entails form-giving, that is, replacing messy perceptions with explicit, delimited categories, transforming idiosyncratic situations into general objects (what Boltanski and Thévenot call “qualifying”). The objective is ultimately to fabricate abstract connections, stable relations and interdependencies among entities (Callon & Muniesa, 2005; Muniesa, Millo, & Callon, 2007). This ontological act (defining what relations exist in a context-free manner) allows actors to gain confidence that all relevant coordinating parties will be able to recognize the same interdependencies, insofar as there are good reasons to believe that distant others are also capable of mobilizing the same convention.

Furthermore, given that actors are profoundly disconnected (in time and space), they cannot communicate and negotiate how they will fit together one another’s actions. They need common resources to make the consequences of their action predictable and mutually compatible. Immutable objects, which are crafted to build equivalence and immobilize a convention (e.g., time zones, clocks, in the case of standard time), equip actors to construct responses that manage interdependencies. ⁵ When available to all coordinating parties, such objects enable monitoring and evaluating of individual coordination efforts by way of testing and evidence making. Testing entails seizing and intervening in a situation, which is probed as an object with conventional properties, in order to get a materially grounded response back. This “real” (anchored to material reality) response counts as evidence or proof as long as certain conditions of validity have been met.

For example, when I look at an analogue clock (action) because I want to catch a flight and need to be at the airport in time to do so, I get a response back (visual cues from the position of clock hands). Although I am not necessarily focally aware of it, I seek to coordinate with multiple actors, e.g., pilots, flight departure staff, trains to get to the airport. I consider the “response from the clock” as evidence that I am late or on time, and this effectively empowers me to monitor my effort to coordinate with all actors involved in making the flight happen. I do so, if I am confident that the clock is working properly (the clock hands are indeed showing the explicit standard time available to all coordinating parties). The outcome of this process, when it is performed by many actors, is the remarkable synchronization of an extremely large number of actions. Although not all conventions may be as effective as standard time is, the point to keep is that managing external interdependence entails some kind of testing and creation of evidence.

The perspective presented and developed above allows distinctions to be made between modes of coordinating, depending on the kind of complexity experienced by actors (task-specific or external interdependencies). Table 1 illustrates a proposed set of conceptual distinctions, which can be used in substantive organizational analysis of situated coordination accomplishments.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Analytic Distinction Between Coordination Modes.

	Coordinating to manage local task interdependencies	Coordinating to manage external interdependencies
Source of interdependencies	Partitioning of an overall organizational task into subtasks, division of labor within a local production setting	The need to link or orchestrate activities that are radically disconnected across time and space
Stance – engagement with the situation	Immersed in the task, focused on channeling collective efforts towards a goal, absorbed in interrelating actions with others	Distant observer of the situation, which is probed on the basis of a convention
Coordination expectations	Regarding exchanges, interactions and collective execution of the task	Regarding demonstrable contributions to abstract, objectives of large-scale coordination
Competence required	Attentiveness to interactions, to task interdependence and resultant integration of tasks	Defining abstract connections on the basis of conventions, testing and creating relevant evidence

Further empirical research is needed to elucidate how coordinating on the basis of conventions actually happens in organizational situations. Accordingly, in my research conducted on a complex contract award project and described in the next paragraphs, I explore empirically how actors effortfully cope with a plurality of interdependencies.

Empirical Setting and Methods

Research Findings

In this section, I describe and represent the ways coordination was accomplished throughout the CC contract award project. I briefly begin with an outline of the overall procurement task and subtasks, which required coordination. I then describe how external interdependencies were recognized and molded coordination on the project. Descriptions are followed by an interpretation, which was derived from the analysis. Finally, a more detailed account of coordinating on the subtask of “assessing partnering competence” is provided to illustrate how management of external interdependencies was accomplished.

The procurement process

At the beginning of the project, the Theta team envisioned a well-defined trajectory of actions (of an estimated duration of 8 months) to accomplish the procurement process (see Figure 1). In particular:

Advertising the contract in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU)

Developing and circulating a prequalification questionnaire (PQQ) to those organizations expressing an interest

Evaluating the returned PQQs based on a pre-established “scoring methodology”

Producing the “invitation to tender” (ITT) documents

Inviting short-listed organizations to submit bids

Evaluating the submitted bids (offers) based on pre-established scoring methodology

Assessing the partnering competence of the short-listed organizations

Negotiating with the preferred bidder(s) on various aspects of the contract

“Standstill period” (required by the EU procurement Directive), i.e., time to allow for suppliers to challenge, if they wish, the process

Publish contract award in the OJEU

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The Envisioned Trajectory of Actions Leading to the CC Contract Award.

The procurement process kicked off at a workshop, where the team started thinking hard about what it would take to award the contract. John (Director of Procurement), who was also the main owner of the procurement process, seemed well aware of the main challenges ahead:

We need to understand the scope of services, to understand what kind of questions we should be asking at a [contract advertisement] stage, what kind of questions we should be asking at PQQ … what kind of questions we then want to ask at the next stage … It’s also about the evaluation criteria … that we envisage stages: what are the key points? What is really going to differentiate the top players [bidders] from average players [bidders]?

Given these challenges, the Theta team identified and embraced a plurality of interdependencies, which generated an ongoing need to coordinate.

Recognizing external interdependencies beyond the procurement process

The Theta team persistently set their minds to additional linkages, which spanned the boundaries of specific procurement tasks. For example, at a prequalification stage, while they knew that they had to create a document—the questionnaire—they were also concerned about the following: how to reflect in that document the construction delivery strategy and “the ideal characteristics of a construction consultant (CC)” (Procurement Plan); how to ensure that fair competition would be safeguarded in accordance with EU legislation. Hence, the team kept expanding on what they were supposed to achieve. This was observed throughout the procurement process. Table 2 summarizes these key interdependencies.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Recognizing and Coping with “External’ Interdependencies During the Procurement Process.

	Project tasks
	Advertising the contract to attract suitable candidates	Preparing the Prequalification Questionnaire (PQQ)	Preparing the Invitation to Tender (ITT)	Assessing Partnering Competence
Experiences of external interdependencies	• Complying with EU advertising requirements	• Complying with EU Directive procedural requirements	• Given the construction delivery demands, bidders need to demonstrate not only technical competence, but also innovative capability through the submission of their bid	• Identifying and evaluating ‘partnering qualities’ of bidders
	• Attracting organizations with the capabilities needed to fulfill the CC role	• Defining the contract scope of services and ‘qualities’ of a good consultant in accordance with the adopted ‘integrated delivery’ model; setting suitable criteria to differentiate among bidders	• Complying with EU Directive procedural requirements; setting transparent screening criteria for comparative evaluation	• Aligning selection procedures with EU procurement law
Associated objective of large-scale integration		• The creation of a common EU market
		• Efficient long-term delivery of the Theta project
Efforts to mobilize conventions to manage interdependencies	• Attending to EU legal statements and publishing the contract award criteria and advertising the contract in the Official Journal of European Union (OJEU)• Attaching high percentile weight to the criterion of “partnering competence” in the OJEU call in order to signal preference for bidders committed to, and experienced in, integrated delivery models (the adopted delivery strategy for the Theta project)	• Attending to EU law, assembling and including in the PQQ all the necessary elements and within specific timeframes required by EU legislation (e.g., PPQ should be issued within 30 days since OJEU call)• Emphasizing vision in the PQQ for an integrated delivery model and utilizing conventional categories to describe the scope of services	• Encouraging bidders to submit “alternative bids”, i.e., offers that would allow them to showcase their innovative thinking and approach to delivering the Theta project (thus ensuring that bidders would be in a position to demonstrate their delivery competences)• Predefining scoring criteria, enforcing and creating evidence of “level playing field” at all stages	• Creating qualitative “objective” evidence of competence• Converting qualitative evidence into comparable information, weighting performances and ranking• Predefining scoring criteria, creating evidence of “level playing field” at all stages
Indicative quotations of how external interdependencies were experienced	“According to EU law we need to comply with some rules … we need to publish the notice in the OJEU and state what our award criteria are … ‘the lowest price’ or ‘the most economically advantageous tender’?”	“We need to be consistent about the scope of services, we can’t change it! Otherwise we may face legal challenge. The same applies with criteria. We cannot ask the same criteria at both PQQ and tender stages … we need to be careful.”	“We don’t want to inhibit their [bidders’] constructive thoughts. We shouldn’t restrict imagination. There are infinite ways of delivering the project … We should encourage innovation through some sort of ‘non-compliant’ [to the existing strategy] bid.”	“We were prompted to give observations of bidders performances within each of the categories that represent elements of partnering competence …”
	“We want to buy a team; not 100m2 of brick works, or 10,000 tons of concrete steel or 4,000m3 of concrete. We are buying services, people, expertise, knowledge! We want thinkers, strategic thinkers …”	“I see the ‘integrated team’ as [being] divorced with a separate identity. The consultants should be able to embrace a collaborative spirit and have a partnering ethos. Also, they need to be experienced in construction management services, ensure buildability, affordability, sustainability of design …”	“We asked them to reflect in the compliant bid, and we said: ‘this represents a compliant strategy in terms of construction program’. This was not worth much in terms of original thought. [But] it was done to get a firm basis on which we could compare across various bidders … to get a level playing field … And then we asked for alternatives.”	“We need to conduct the same exercises in the same sequence, using the same assessors and materials, and then ‘moderate’ the scores … these are essential for EU compliance.”

A major source of interdependence stemmed from expectations in defining how the CC would fit within the overall construction strategy. In an interview, Mathew, the Project Director, was quite assertive that the CC contract and the strategy for delivering the entire project were highly interrelated:

We started with what is our end result [project completion] and therefore worked at what is our journey [construction process]. And as part of identifying the journey back to front, you then work out from: “what’s the starting point?” Our starting point had all its roots back to the development of the delivery strategy developed. So we knew where we started from, which is: “how do we do this? We need an integrated project team (IPT)”… But then we have to describe what it is that we are looking to add in our own team to make this IPT work. And this is where the concept of a Construction Consultant (CC) came from.

By going back and forth to the future (6–7 years down the line), Mathew with his executive team were concerned to determine what activities would be needed to deliver the Theta megaproject. Accordingly, to develop relevant descriptions in the contract scope, the team held brainstorming sessions and also emulated contract descriptions used in projects of similar delivery approach; such as the construction of Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport in London, as well as the London 2012 construction projects (all these projects used a collaborative model of delivery). The Theta team drew upon (and sometimes copied) the wording found in descriptions of similar contracts to “strengthen the contract scope of services” (Director of Procurement). Such descriptions specified the generic ingredients—capabilities needed when at the heart of a strategy for delivering a complex project was an integrated project team (see Table 3 for an excerpt from the actual contract description).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Excerpt from the Actual Description of the Construction Consultant (CC) Services.

Services required	Actual description
Management of construction	To carry out the management and supervision of all construction Works Packages including permanent and temporary works, enabling works and services. This role is extended to logistics and project site planning and co-ordination of transport, labor movements, material requirements and storage and related matters.
Management of integration	To ensure that the designers, whether Consultants or Specialists, integrate their designs to satisfy the operational requirements. To ensure the co-ordination and management of issues between the boundaries of design, construction and operational issues.
Collaborative working and innovation	Subscribe to, understand and implement the principles of collaborative working throughout the lifecycle of the project. This will require an environment that encourages collaboration within the integrated project team to implement and facilitate a process that encourages and embraces innovation within both design and construction works processes.
Procurement of construction Works Packages	To advise on the selection and procurement of suitable Contractors for the Works Packages, including, but not limited to, input to preparation of tender documents, the evaluation of returned tenders and the making of award recommendations.
Management of cost	To include the support of the cost planning, estimating, forecasting, reporting, managing and controlling of all costs associated with/arising from/required for the design, construction and commissioning processes employed on the project.
Management of time	To include program development, maintenance, monitoring and reporting throughout the project lifecycle. This may include, but not be limited to, design, procurement, manufacture (including expediting), construction, commissioning and handover. To ensure that the design program is compatible with the construction program.

While they were developing various procurement documents (e.g., different versions), the Team wanted to make sure that what was being written was consistent with the bigger picture: categories—abstract CC services that would be required throughout the 6-year delivery period, and after the contract award in order to:

… ensure that the construction, commissioning and cost management deliverables [in connection to the Theta project] are generated in accordance with the agreed program, within the agreed budget, to the agreed technical standard, and at the required level of detail/quality. (Contract Scope of Services)

Definitions of conventional CC services brought to the foreground key linkages with time, cost, quality objectives and in ways that, “the right people [prospective bidders] would understand” (field notes at the kick-off project meeting). Although these descriptions revealed very little about the actual work that would need to go into, for example, “working collaboratively and innovating”, what mattered was to paint an abstract picture of all “services that must be provided to manage this project economically and efficiently” (Michael, Director of Construction Program). While doing their work, then, the team was absorbed in managing interdependencies specific to the procurement process (e.g., how to create documents collectively), but also very concerned to accommodate what appeared to be linkages with the long-term objective of efficient delivery.

Furthermore, everyone involved in the procurement process knew that Publico, as a public authority operating in the European Union (EU), needed to comply with some stringent advertising and procedural requirements outlined in an official EU Directive. John (Director of Procurement) explained further:

The problem we’ve got is that there are certain EU regulations that we are following … we want to make sure we are not going to get any fines … because if you get fined for breaching the EU legislation the max fine is up to 10% of the company turnover … so it is a phenomenal fine! We are very keen to make sure we don’t breach the EU legislation …. When you start [the selection process], you [thus] want to make sure that due processes and consideration has been given … [and that] we behave consistently compliant with the EU legislation.

The EU Directive 20084/18/EC (Article 46) explicitly aims at: “coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors” (p. 1). ⁸ The team recurrently referred to the EU Directive, which prescribed how to “ensure compliance with the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment and guarantee that tenders are assessed in conditions of effective competition” (paragraph 55, cited in the Procurement Plan). For example, the team decided to make a “call for competition” through the publication of a “contract notice” in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) (see http://ted.europa.eu), which would also be beneficial to the procurement process by “opening the market” and attracting capable organizations (Director of Procurement). This meant that the team enriched their understanding of what their tasks were about and focused on making sure that their actions and decisions addressed the (externally imposed) objective of guaranteeing fair competition. They were also particularly mindful of the fact that they could be “challenged by a potentially hostile provider”, or EU auditor (see Table 2). In order to protect themselves, they kept creating “demonstrable evidence” and “comparative factual and indisputable information … between competing economic operators” (Gary, Director of Construction). While undertaking the procurement process, the Theta team strove not only to award the CC contract but also to arrange their performances in ways that would ostensibly guarantee a level playing field among bidders.

Interpretation: Recognizing external interdependencies

While accomplishing the CC procurement, the Theta team experienced imperatives to contribute through their actions to: (i) the orchestration of a myriad of distant activities (the activities of the construction project) and (ii) the creation of an EU-wide market. What was supposed to get coordinated was expanded and this was manifested in project members’ view of what was going on. They repeatedly detached themselves from real-time happenings (perceptions, feelings, lived narratives) of the procurement process and turned their attention to conventions—models, categories and representations—that were rigid, general, and explicit. Conventions enabled them to model fixed “clean” entities (e.g., CC services and strategy) and logical associations among these on the basis of the principle of construction efficiency. The Theta team painted a strategic canvas of associations between fixed resources that would stabilize and predict the future (construction delivery). The CC procurement process was probed as a key component of a production function: conventional “time, cost, quality” parameters of the Theta project were regarded as the dependent variables, which could be controlled over time by independent variables (i.e., the abstract, context-free CC services and their organization within the integrated team delivery model). On the basis of the model, they were then able to postulate key cause-effect connections between different competences (functional investments), which, when combined within an integrated team, would guarantee efficient production (meeting time, cost, quality specs).

The team also expressed concerns that the CC procurement was not a private exercise but rather a process of involving and communicating with industry actors, who might bid for the contract or be otherwise involved in the project. The conventional terms and descriptions were the common vocabulary (common knowledge), which—ostensibly—made the team understood by anonymous industry actors while coordinating the specifics of their tasks.

Apart from a construction delivery component, the CC procurement was probed as an abstract site where any EU-situated market player could (should) express their willingness and ability to compete. Again, from the point of view of the actor, this process entailed detachment in looking upon the CC procurement as a kind of a marketplace with particular properties, which did (or potentially did not) guarantee transparent and effective competition. Throughout the duration of the project, the Theta team recurrently “took a step back” to recognize the specific process of identifying and selecting a supplier as equivalent to procurement procedures undertaken according to the EU convention. On a recurrent basis (as shown in Table 2), they were prompted to ensure their actions guaranteed an internationally agreed (by the governments of all EU member states) “common good”, that is, the creation of an EU single market. ⁹ Importantly, the criteria and rules of the EU Directive prompted the Theta team to become focally aware of specific ways to guarantee fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory treatment of bidders. The latter had to be grasped not only as potential consultants with more or less relevant technical expertise but also as “economic operators” (the official terminology of the Directive was also adopted in the contract documents) with equal desires to compete and win a contract (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006). The availability of the official text of the EU Directive—a document in the public domain and an objectified piece of common knowledge—gave the Theta team confidence that they were recognizing the same interdependencies as other actors overseeing (for whatever reason) the coordination of EU-wide procurement processes (e.g., EU regulators, prospective and possibly hostile bidders, who could challenge the process).

External interdependencies essentially molded coordination accomplishment to account for the pursuit of efficient construction and the obligation to contribute to the creation of an EU-wide market (as formalized by the EU Directive). Coordinating was adjusted in the following five ways: (1) shifting stance on the situation and searching for a richer definition of the task; (2) expanding on the definition of complexity underpinning task completion; (3) mobilizing conventions (e.g., construction industry models and categories, market competition rules) to explore connections among distant activities and abstract objectives; (4) objectifying (specifying in stable and logical linkages between project activities and such objectives; (5) orienting local interactions to not only get local tasks done but also make the outputs of the tasks compatible with the broader objectives.

While a lot of effort focused on articulating external interdependencies, the Theta team was also very concerned to manage these “realistically”. Below, I illustrate how these additional efforts unfolded in the subtask of assessing partnering capabilities.

Managing external interdependencies while assessing bidders’ partnering capabilities

The Theta team knew that assessing bidders’ partnering competence, which counted for 18% of the total bid score, was not a standalone activity. The team recognized that key external interdependencies existed, and had to be managed. Accordingly, they oriented their coordination efforts to (i) create evidence of partnering capabilities, which could be deemed externally valid; (ii) give evidence a quantifiable form, which could enable transparent comparative evaluation of bidders’ capabilities, and (iii) create proofs of undertaking a “fair” process.

Creating evidence of partnering capabilities

The Theta team recognized that collaborative working within the “integrated project team” was crucial. For the integrated team to deliver the project efficiently, it was not enough for the construction consultant to just have relevant technical expertise: “soft skills” were equally important. As Mathew explained:

The quality of the relationships between those involved in a project is key to how successful that project will be. Time after time we hear of a contractual conflict, which could have been either avoided or at least resolved so much sooner with some decent communication and negotiation. It’s people who deliver construction projects … Particularly where complex or long-term projects are concerned, it is vital to establish relationships [that] must have the potential to last for the life of the project.

Yet, how could the Theta team be certain that bidders possessed such soft skills? How could they elicit relevant information? In line with industry best practice (OGC, 2007), they pursued evaluating bidders’ skills through specially designed workshops:

The [assessing partnering competence] workshops should generate sufficient reliable and valid evidence on the behavior characteristics and competences of the bidders’ teams … The results of the workshop should provide Publico with a behavior characteristic profile of the bidders’ teams, which should be representative of how a team is likely to work alongside the Theta team. The characteristics will be observed and recorded within a structured framework. (Procurement Plan)

At the workshops, bidders would be able to demonstrate “the extent to which there was a ‘cultural fit’ between the bidding and the Theta team” (Procurement Plan). In simpler terms:

We asked the bidders: “Prove that you work as a team! Talking [about teamwork] is cheap whiskey costing money! Prove it” [your soft skills]! (Michael, Director of Construction Program)

In essence, through the workshops they sought to know the quality of bidders’ partnering competences before awarding the CC contract.

Creating evidence of partnering competences

Prior to the workshops, four assessors were trained to use “assessment sheets” and questionnaires, which were based on psychological studies of team performance (for confidentiality purposes these studies will not be cited). The sheets were founded upon experimental evidence of “what makes a team work effectively” and outlined general attitudes and abstract behaviors of effective team working. A reconstruction of the sheets is provided in Table 4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Assessment Sheets Used to Create Evidence of Competences.

Area	Evidence
Innovating
Coordinating
Organizing
Planning
Inspecting
Developing solutions

The assessors took extensive personal notes (not unlike ethnographers) of the behaviors, dialogues and events that unfolded during the workshops and as part of different exercises, for example, exercises aimed at “developing a project charter” or “dealing with a project disaster scenario”. All assessors were positively surprised at the “untold benefits” of seeing people “in action”. Gary (Director of Construction) found the exercise illuminating:

It enabled me to see the persons in action … to see them working, to see their approach to things, their attitude, their attention to detail, to see the bigger picture, the whole person, rather than what was written on a piece of paper, a CV, which would, to a degree, depend on the art of the, or skill of the CV writer, which may not always be the individual, may be a corporate CV writer … what you don’t see in CVs is the particular spin or importance that one person might put on some aspects of the CV. Seeing the person in action, you can actually see what sort of person they are … how they interact with people.

Note-taking was, however, only part of the work that assessors did. What was particularly challenging for them was to match actual raw descriptions of real behaviors with the fixed kinds of behaviors and attitudes outlined in the template (Table 4). The assessors put a lot of effort into classifying their descriptions under the categories of the sheets (that is to say, into creating some correspondence between “coordinating”, “innovating”, “implementing”, “developing”, etc., and the things they were observing). This was far from straightforward. Reflecting on his experience as an assessor, Pat said:

We were prompted to give observations within each of the categories [“innovating”, “coordinating”, etc.] … it took a while to actually sort of settle into that … [During the workshops] there is a lot of take in … almost every second your eyes are open, you are trying to observe behaviors … If you switch off for 10 minutes, you might miss something fundamental … you are trying to remain alert, but also trying to record your thoughts as frequently and as briefly as possible so that it doesn’t distract you from observing the behaviors … In order for you to observe those behavioral patterns … and to be able to articulate them into any control process [referring to the assessment sheets], it’s got to be fundamentally subjective! Because it is coming from you! You are based on your own experiences. It is fundamentally a subjective process, but articulated in an objective way [emphasis added]. Without the assessment sheets … there is some blank paper on which you just make your own notes as we go through the day … you are still observing things in the same way but not in a guided way. The categories give you a direction. Because, [if] you just write things that you think are right, how do you assess subjective comments on a piece of paper? How do you join them up together and come up with some sort of answer?

Interpretation

The answer Pat was looking for was positive knowledge of bidders’ partnering competence. As vividly illustrated in the above quotation, subjective observations could be “articulated objectively” with the support of the assessment sheets. Pat’s quest for objectivity bore on the conversion of his personal perceptions, thoughts, and emotions into a more general, conventional form of evidence. The creation of objective evidence was a situated cognitive process of transforming sensory information and other lived experiences from observing people in action into notes, and eventually into probative information of team processes—fixed, impersonal labels. Although these general categories were not industry specific, they made sense from a perspective of efficient construction. Evidence that a bidding team demonstrated “innovation” (personal written notes matched with a stable behavioral attribute) was regarded as proof of “good partnering”—a key delivery ingredient for an effective integrated team.

Hence, Pat welcomed the fact that the sheets “took over” to define what his observations actually meant, since the objective of the exercise was to specify qualities that guaranteed provisionally the efficient future delivery of the Theta project. At stake was not the personal and intuitive observation of behaviors but rather the probative identification of conventional competences: indeed, “persons in actions” were transformed into objective, “cold”, partnering competences. The uncertainty of whether bidders possessed such competences was absorbed to a significant extent since the assessment sheets solidified, hardened and demonstrated those. The construction of judgment (e.g., that Bidder “A” exhibits innovation competence) was grounded on immutable and solid objects, ¹⁰ which were valued as proof of coordination. In essence, what appeared to be just another task (i.e., gathering evidence of partnering competences), was in fact a deliberate process of managing linkages with the demanding objective of delivering the Theta megaproject efficiently.

Evaluating comparative performance of partnering capabilities

Given the multiple offers on the table—three organizations submitted tenders—the Theta team had to choose “the best possible team” (Michael) by systematically comparing competences and determining the bidder with the highest levels of partnering competence and best “cultural fit” (according to the collected evidence). Addressing these interdependencies entailed a series of effortful accomplishments. First of all, the Theta team collectively determined which kinds of conventional behaviors—assessment areas—were more important than others in relation to the “ideal integrated team”. For example, it was collectively decided that “communication and listening” was very important, while engagement with “key stakeholders” was less crucial. At the end of this exercise, they attached a weight to different categories and developed a ranking (e.g., “innovating” was twice as important as “public relations”).

Second, and after the workshops, individual assessors provided a measure of how well each bidder performed in relation to each behavioral category. The assessors were prompted to give scores by comparing “how often something should occur vs. how often it actually occurred”. A scoring matrix was used by all assessors, who gathered and evaluated quantitatively the collected evidence of competences (see Table 5).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

The Scoring Matrix used to Guide Conversion of Qualitative Evidence into Numerical Evaluations.

Quantitative score	Qualitative Score	Description
0 to 10	Inadequate	“little or no evidence” of the required behavior
11 to 35	Marginal	“some evidence” of the behavior
36 to 60	Competent	“evidence” of the behavior
61 to 85	Comprehensive	“clear evidence” of the behavior
86 to 100	Excellent	“comprehensive evidence”‘ of the behavior

Third, “scoring consensus” was reached among assessors, who agreed on a final score for each conventional category of competence for each bidding team. Figure 2 represents the “moderated” assessment outcomes (each column represents one bidding team, while each triangle stands for a particular competence area, e.g., “communication”, “coordination”).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

“Moderated” Assessment Outcomes.

Fourth, the moderated scores were weighted on the basis of Theta team’s preference, that is, ordering the importance of partnering categories, which had been set at the very beginning. The final outcome was single numbers corresponding to the overall performance of each bidder; for example, 65% for Team “A”, 60% for Team “B” and 45% for Team “C”.

Interpretation

The transformation of qualitative evidence into a single number was a procurement-specific task, which, at the same time, accommodated a key external interdependence. Numbers demonstrated which resources (bidders’ capabilities) were worthier of receiving investment (award the contract) than others. The different bidders were probed and grasped as different, comparable resources, which, when deployed within the delivery system, contributed ostensibly to the objective of large-scale integration needed for efficient construction. Yet, the question arose: should it be bidding team A or B to achieve such objective? To provide an answer, they sought to rationalize alternatives on the basis of material-cum-conventional evidence of partnering capabilities collected at the workshops. The processes of transforming the qualitative (albeit objective) evidence into a single number—a fundamentally different kind of proof—rendered comparison possible. Numbers served as newly-developed proofs to enable the identification of the most competent partner and an ostensible contribution to the overarching objective concerted delivery.

Creating evidence of fair treatment

While the CC contract award process was a specific “Publico business”, it was also enveloped within general matters of EU-wide coordination and market competition. As a result, the team was heedful to gather undisputable evidence of fair treatment. Apart from defining assessment criteria in advance, they debriefed all bidders about the assessment criteria prior to the workshops. Furthermore, the facilitator was repeatedly instructing the Theta team members, who would participate in the exercises, to “behave the same” on all three occasions and to “act as normal” (that is, performing their roles and actions as in their “normal” everyday working environment). Being, or more accurately, appearing unbiased towards all bidders had to be documented. Also, all workshops kicked off with the same presentation by the facilitator, who always started with the following clarifications in a remarkably consistent way—hence behaving in an overtly unbiased way and in the spirit of treating all bidders fairly:

Good morning everyone! I am a qualified organizational consultant. Today we are focusing on “soft issues” … The rules of engagement for today are that … there will be a number of different exercises, during which you need to demonstrate behaviors for nine assessment areas [showing a graph, which depicts the areas]. The assessment approach is based on a robust and validated model of team performance measurement …. I should stress that the assessors, who have received formal training, need to see certain behaviors …. No prior knowledge is assumed. This is a formal assessment based on evidence collected today. The past doesn’t count. The technology doesn’t count … it is about soft issues!

Throughout the task, the facilitator, the assessors and the Theta team documented the process as much as possible and collected original copies of everything that occurred and could be recorded at the workshops; for example, assessors’ raw notes, as well as briefings to exercises, documentation of assessors’ training, and “moderating” scores.

Interpretation

Being aware of the stringent imperatives of the EU directive, the Theta team adjusted their coordination efforts in order to take part, as impartial observers, in a process of enabling fair competition. While they were absorbed in carrying out many other things during the task (as shown above), they also recurrently probed what was going on through the rational eyes of EU lawmakers (in the light of the objectified strict procedural rules of the EU directive). That is, they often pushed to the background those aspects of experienced reality that appeared less relevant to the pursuit of effective competition among three “economic operators” (e.g., the politeness of different bidders); and focused on what were recognized as marketplace properties of the unfolding situation, such as the treatment of bidders, the latter’s opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities, the clarification of the rules of competition, and the evaluation of such capabilities on the basis of a common currency (the stated criteria). This process oriented the Theta team to create new objects (reports) that could be offered as proofs of “fair treatment”, should a legal challenge emerge in the future. These proofs inscribed the systematic efforts of the team to keep the same distance between the contract opportunity and all eligible market players and to filter out other factors. It was now their turn (after and alongside bidders) to demonstrate conventional competences to manage the thorny interdependencies, which the EU Directive imposed on the procurement process. These interdependencies stemmed from the deliberate pursuit of large-scale coordination of procurement processes in the EU in order to create a single market. Objects and documentations offered impartial testimonies of how such competences had been displayed before, during and after the soft skills workshops.

Discussion

In this article I offered insights into how the Theta project team performed coordination on the procurement process of a Construction Consultant (CC) (a multi-million euro professional services contract). Being involved in an early stage of a complex construction project (the Theta project), the team was deeply concerned to contribute through its local actions and work outcomes (e.g., bid evaluation, the actual contract award) to two objectives of large-scale integration. These objectives transcended the specifics of the contracting process: (a) the efficient future delivery of the multi-year long project; and (b) the creation of market competition in accordance with European Union (EU) law affecting procurement processes across the EU. As they were persistently setting their minds to these objectives while at work, the Theta team drew upon conventions to construct associated contributions. In a detailed account, I showed how the team identified and managed a series of “external” interdependencies on the basis of a construction delivery convention widely accepted in the industry and the EU convention for market competition. These conventions equipped them to fabricate interdependence between specific procurement tasks and broader, supra-task, large-scale integration endeavors (orchestration of the myriad of activities needed to deliver the Theta project and large-scale coordination of procurement activities to create an EU market). What was also crucial for the team was to create evidence that validated their responses to the uncertainties created by external interdependencies. Table 6 summarizes the constitutive role of conventions in coordination performances observed during the task of assessing partnering competences.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Managing External Interdependencies on the Basis of Conventions.

	Creating evidence of “partnering competences”	Giving evidence quantitative form	Undertaking a “fair process”
Concern for coordination	“A good Construction Consultant (CC) should possess partnering competences. But do bidders have such competences?”	“Which bidding team possesses the best partnering skills and hence is more capable of working within the integrated team?”	“How do we protect the procurement process against the potential of challenge, which the EU regulations offer?”
Source of interdependence	Efficient, orchestrated delivery within integrated teams requires that the CC should possess certain partnering competences	Bidders’ partnering competences are grasped as functional investments: need to compare and rank these to determine the optimal investment	Imperative to coordinate with other public procurement processes across the EU and safeguard competition
Coordination mode (managing interdependence)	Transforming subjective observations into “objective” demonstrations of competence	Converting evidence into comparable information to determine relative worth of competences	Predefining scoring criteria, acting “the same” with bidding teams, enforcing level playing field
Role of evidence	To externally validate demonstrations of partnering competences by bidding teams	To differentiate and rank available “investments” (bidders with fixed competences) to deliver the project	To demonstrate and prove that conditions for creating effective competition have been met
Conventions	Construction delivery convention	Construction delivery convention and EU-market convention	EU-market convention

Findings from my research shed new light on a distinctive mode of coordination, which is enacted when actors are committed (and/or prompted) to contribute to objectives of large-scale integration. In a variety of organizational settings, local tasks need to be rendered compatible within broader “worlds of production” (Storper & Salais, 1997) and enveloped in purposeful, large-scale organizing endeavors. Consider, for instance, settings where the design and manufacturing of highly complex technological products (Argyres, 1999), the systematic production and accumulation of scientific knowledge (Cambrosio et al., 2006), the production of transparent quality rankings across an industry (Scott & Orlikowski, 2012), as well as sustainable development (Garud & Gehman, 2012) are key concerns. Insights from this paper suggest that, when pursuing contributions to large-scale integration, organizational actors experience imperatives to connect their local actions with other actions that are very distant in temporal and spatial terms. In the light of such imperatives, they enact a distinctive type of agency and coordination mode.

Further, this mode needs to be understood as a dynamic engagement with concrete situations (Thévenot, 2001b), which yet differs in kind from local coordinating modes highlighted in organizational literature (Faraj & Xiao, 2006; Majchrzak et al., 2012; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009). Coordinating on the basis of conventions does not take place at some “macro” level of analysis, but is an irreducibly local engagement. To study this under-explored coordinating mode, this research has been informed by Convention Theory (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006; Thévenot, 2001a, 2001b). Convention Theory draws analytic attention to the enacted stance, that is, the dynamic ways by which actors engage local situations in their efforts to join in a large-scale integration process (Thévenot, 2001b). From this perspective, the research focus is on how actors dynamically adopt a stance by enacting three interwoven engagements: probing, grasping and testing. Probing concerns the ways by which actors examine and inquire into how a situation can be understood and found relevant from the perspective of distant actors—detached observers of a situation, who are taking part in large-scale coordination efforts. Probing constitutes an investigative effort to recognize objects and persons in a situation in the light of a convention (e.g., the workshop performances of each bidding team as types of competence). Grasping entails developing positive and externally verifiable knowledge of objective-cum-conventional properties of a situation and defining what external interdependencies exist. Finally, testing entails devising a coordinated response that can be found externally valid. This engagement involves enrolling objects that equip actors to construct and assess the outputs of their work (e.g., assessment sheets to codify competences). Testing includes crafting and converting work products into evidence that can circulate widely and count as proofs of addressing external interdependencies, that is, as ostensible contributions to large-scale integration endeavors.

My empirical research has provided further insights into how coordinating on the basis of conventions unfolds in concrete organizational situations. In particular, this paper dovetails with existing organizational literature, which has shown that organizational actors inevitably become concerned with task-specific interdependencies (see, e.g., Kellogg et al., 2006). Yet, it also highlights, that when confronted with “external” interdependencies and, accordingly, striving to coordinate through conventions, actors put extra effort to bracket and discontinue their immersion in the particular circumstances they find themselves in; and break away from their engagement with task-specific interdependencies. That is, when seeking to contribute to large-scale integration objectives, they strive to push into the background features of their local situations that are perceptible only by the specific team or groups involved in a project; for example, features such as the energy that is evoked through conversations to get specific actions done (Quinn & Dutton, 2005), the narratives that guide the performances of project work, and so on. Actors effortfully set aside their own subjective experiences of the specifics of the local situation to attune to broader objectives. This was vividly manifested, for instance, at the workshops where the Theta team eventually shunted aside the personal qualities of bidders to identify and evaluate individuals as more or less competent in partnering. Findings suggest that addressing external interdependencies entails a pragmatic versatility to alternate between modes of coordination in the same organizational situation. Thus, to coordinate through conventions in practice, organizational actors effortfully switch stance on the unfolding situation: from being absorbed in their interactions with others and objects/tools to address emergent task-related interdependencies (Bechky, 2006; Weick & Roberts, 1993), they probe and grasp the situation in a detached manner—a stance to accomplish coordination through conventions. The implications are that organizational researchers may need to investigate in greater detail moments that point to such versatility—for example, when actors “forget” temporarily their hands-on involvement in a particular project to reflect on the general properties of their tasks and draw associations with broader objectives of large-scale coordination.

Insights from my empirical research further suggest that the pragmatic versatility entailed in addressing external interdependencies in organizations is manifested mainly in temporal dynamics and can be fruitfully analyzed from that standpoint. Specifically, this study has demonstrated that a convention-based coordination mode involves embracing a distinctive temporal orientation and assembling a sense of “artificial”, conventionally formatted time. Not unlike in the case of standard time (Zerubavel, 1982), when mobilizing conventions to coordinate, actors enact non-idiosyncratic and locally-transcending conceptions of time. For example, when the Theta project team was coping with interdependence between the contracting process and the overall delivery strategy, they were recognizing an abstract future: the efficient year-long delivery of a complex construction project. The future inscribed in that objective differed from that projected for the specific procurement project (i.e., the award of the contract) and could only be grasped by rising above the specifics of, for example, preparing contract documents, receiving and evaluating bids and so on. In essence, coordinating through conventions entails an effort to bracket the experienced rhythm or tempo of work (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011) in order to make sense of “temporal coordinates” within an abstract system of representation—a convention. A particular type of versatility is thus needed to switch between temporal orientations to manage both task-specific and external interdependencies. The implications are that organizational researchers interested in examining coordination dynamics need to pay close attention to diverse temporal orientations enacted by organizational actors. For example, when actors pause to be concerned about what action comes next to get their job done and postulate how their local tasks may relate to pursuits of large-scale coordination (e.g., efficient production).

Finally, this study suggests that pragmatic versatility and alternation in temporal orientations presupposes and is based on an expanded content of local tasks. Organizational actors appear to add subtasks or change the content of work trajectories (e.g., a work process or plan) to accommodate external interdependencies. To be precise, expansion here means molding what a task is about and set to accomplish in order to render its anticipated outcomes relevant and compatible within pursuits of large-scale integration. For example, assessing partnering competences can be understood as an additional task to the CC procurement process (e.g., tasks of preparing and evaluating bids) precisely because organizational actors recognized a novel “external” interdependence between the CC contract and the future delivery of the Theta project; that is, that a capable consultant should be a good partner and not solely technically proficient. Local trajectories of action thus get shaped to account for key external interdependencies and become enveloped within larger and more complex organizing endeavors. In other words, coordinating through conventions is bound to create additional burdens on local work accomplishment. This insight also highlights that mobilizing conventions is grounded in the accomplishment of particular tasks. For example, creating objective evidence of partnering competences was not possible without assessors’ effortful note taking at workshops; mobilizing the construction delivery convention depended wholly on assessors’ very local observations of bidders’ performances. The implications are that coordination dynamics—switching between coordination modes—are grounded in expanded definitions of local tasks.

In summary, this study advances understanding of a distinctive mode of coordinating through conventions and offered a set of analytic concepts to investigate how it is effortfully accomplished in organizations (hence, the focus is on verbs, e.g., probing, grasping, bracketing, etc. rather than nouns) alongside interaction-intensive modes of coordination. Figure 3 illustrates a model of coordination dynamics that emerged from this research.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

A Model of Coordination Dynamics in the Face of “External” Interdependencies in Organizational Situations.

Below, I elaborate further on how this model extends current understanding of the coordination problem in organization theory.

Contributions to Organization Theory of Coordination

Existing scholarship suggests that coordination is an organizational activity, which emerges in contexts where interdependent actors need to align their different contributions to achieve a common objective. The need for integrating the efforts of multiple actors working on different components of a task gives rise to interactional processes of coordination (Heath & Staudenmayer, 2000; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009). The research presented in this paper extends existing understandings of coordinative action and contributes to organization theory in two ways.

First, it alters existing images of coordination adjustments in organizations. In the literature, coordination adjustments become necessary when things do not go as planned, and actors need to deal with unusual, problematic trajectories (e.g., a patient not recovering as anticipated). Significant changes in coordination practices are observed in the face of novel task interdependencies, which may emerge under conditions of time pressure, high contestation and ambiguity. For example, Faraj and Xiao (2006) suggest that alternations between routine coordination practices (“expertise coordination”) and reactive coordination practices (“dialogic coordination”) are observed as organizational actors are confronted with occasional deviations on task trajectories. In essence, adjustments in coordination serve the same concern: to address changing task-specific interdependencies and repair a problematic local trajectory of action. The research presented in this paper adds that, insofar as organizational actors pursue making their actions compatible and relevant within supra-task, large-scale integration endeavors, they may also adjust their coordination efforts to mobilize conventions and give explicit form to, and manage, external interdependencies. Hence, adjustments in coordination practices pertain not only to the different ways by which interactions are accomplished ¹¹ (Faraj & Xiao, 2006), but also to the versatility of switching between coordination modes, which entails ongoing shifts in experience and fundamental transformations in the way a situation is engaged. That is, adjustments in coordination do not only aim at correcting a local trajectory, but also serve multiple local and general organizing efforts. While a lot of coordinating adjustment often happens through realigning dynamically local contributions, organizational actors may also adjust their coordination efforts by discontinuing their full absorption in the specifics of the local situation to set their minds and channel their efforts to contribute to objectives of large-scale integration. This change in the mode of engagement with the situation at hand prompts them to account for a significantly expanding number of coordinating parties, anticipate linkages between their present coordination efforts (e.g., what competences are assembled through procuring a construction consultant) and large-scale coordination outcomes (efficient, orchestrated delivery), and construct ostensible contributions through creating relevant, conventional evidence. This paper thus provides a more complex conceptualization of coordination adjustments in organizations that accounts for a plurality of coordination agencies (modes).

The growing emphasis on extended coordination and interconnectedness (Brunsson et al., 2012; Orlikowski, 2002; Scott & Orlikowski, 2012) suggests that the significance of coordinating on the basis of conventions might be on the rise. Future research is needed to examine further the interplay and adjustments between modes of coordination in other organizational settings and investigate the consequences of imperatives to coordinate with distant others at the level of action and engagements with situations. It would also be important to investigate the role of digital technologies, such as simulations (Bailey, Leonardi, & Barley, 2012; Bailey, Leonardi, & Chong, 2010), in mediating alternations between modes of coordination as these technologies may afford an alternative experience of dealing with “external” interdependencies (for example, make them more visual). An important question for future research thus seems to be: does the pragmatic versatility observed on the Theta project resemble that found in other contexts where digitally mediated mobilization of conventions is observed? Finally, future research needs to explore the influence of conventions in settings where intensity of interactions is of paramount importance to achieve organizational outcomes (e.g., in healthcare settings). As actors in such settings seem to be increasingly burdened with expectations of contributing to large-scale integration (e.g., following guidelines, standards, protocols), it would be important to examine how such expectations mold the intensity of interactions and affect organizational outcomes.

Second, by shedding light on the diversity of coordination modes in organizations, this research contributes to our understanding of the role of accountability in coordination. Present scholarship suggests (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009) that coordination, as a practical activity, is grounded on the creation of accountability of individuals’ contributions to the goals, process and outputs of joint work (Jarzabkowski et al., 2012). Coordination is enabled when actions of dispersed individuals are made witnessable and anticipatable within a local division of labor, such as a project team, or a set of organizational groups/communities. Interdependent actors are able to watch and recognize the work of others through physical proximity (see, for example, Bechky’s work on film projects, 2006) and/or through artifacts, such as drawings (Bechky, 2003a), which are continuously exchanged at work. Importantly, accountability is not given, but produced and negotiated in situated, ongoing interactions, which occur at the intersections of, for example, multiple occupational communities, knowledge sharing occasions (e.g., meetings), and ad hoc face-to-face encounters at the workplace (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009).

The research presented in this paper suggests that, when enacting a mode of coordinating through conventions, organizational actors materialize strikingly different meanings of accountability. Specifically, when committed to pursuits of large-scale integration, organizational actors do not just perceive accountability in terms of how their work becomes locally recognizable and compatible with the work of other participants within an unfolding collective performance (Faraj & Xiao, 2006), but experience accountability imperatives “from a distance” (Scott & Orlikowski, 2012). By shifting their stance on the situation at hand, they seek to ascertain what part they play in large-scale integration endeavors through creating objective-cum-conventional evidence; rather than by rendering the specifics of their work activities visible and witnessable to other participants in a task. This is because they feel that it is detached observers—highly dispersed actors participating or having a stake in large-scale integration (e.g., the EU regulators in the case of the Theta project, other actors to be involved in the future delivery of the project)—who could hold them to account for their coordination efforts. Such observers would gaze only at the conventional properties of their actions (e.g., how well the principles of market competition were considered in the contracting process) and examine how key external interdependencies have been accounted for. In short, the role of accountability in coordinating is modified and entails demonstration and retrospective examination (by third parties) of coordination responses through the intermediary of evidence. In contrast to previous organization studies of coordination, which have shown that accountability is constituted in interactions, perhaps the most striking finding in this study is that accountability is apportioned to objects, which can circulate beyond local situations as relevant proofs of contributions to large-scale integration endeavors. Future research may need to explore how the management of “external” interdependencies and the effort to demonstrate accountability is mediated by factors such as increased transparency. Do different ways of creating transparency (for example, mediated by digital technologies) alter the way actors create proofs of their contributions to large-scale integration? How do concerns of accountability manifest then? Future research may also be needed to shed more light on how ostensible contributions to large-scale integration become actual contributions—that is, how large-scale coordination as an outcome is evaluated and how contributors to achieving such outcome are held to account at different points in time and space.

Conclusions

Building on recent organizational literature, this paper examined coordination as an ongoing accomplishment and shed new light on a distinctive mode of convention-based coordination. In addition to coordinating locally with others on a task, organizational actors may experience imperatives (external interdependencies) to connect their local actions with other actions, which are distant in temporal and spatial terms. Through an in-depth study of a procurement process on a construction megaproject (the Theta project), I highlighted the constitutive role conventions—explicit systems of representation—in addressing such imperatives and pursuing coordinated contributions to large-scale integration. The Theta project team recurrently adopted a particular stance to mobilize conventions and render the procurement process compatible with the year-long efficient delivery of the project and with imperatives to safeguard competition in the EU. Conventions equipped them to fabricate external interdependence between specific project tasks and broader, supra-task organizing endeavors and to address these through the development of relevant evidence. The paper offered a set of analytic concepts to examine the accomplishment of distinctive modes of coordination in organizations. To accomplish coordinating through conventions, organizational actors effortfully switch stance on the unfolding situation: from being absorbed in their interactions with others and objects/tools to address task-related interdependencies (Bechky, 2006; Weick & Roberts, 1993), they probe and grasp the situation in a detached manner—a stance to accomplish coordination through conventions. This research has thus shown that different coordination modes may unfold in the same organizational territory (e.g., a project) and level of analysis (they co-exist), yet their accomplishment may be mutually exclusive. This article has thus enriched conceptualizations of coordination in organizations and sought to reinvigorate research interest in diverse modes of coordinating.