Research presentation at academic conference

1. Relational capabilities in projects
Maria Kapsali

2. Background
This study will explain how governance mechanisms can facilitate
the development and utilization of relational capabilities in projects.
The 17 projects belong to the IST and Public Health programmes of
the EU FP5 and they were supposed to develop and/or deploy ICT
systems in specific healthcare settings in order to improve services
such as the comparison of epidemiological data across European
countries, the development of ICT software for medical services
and the deployment of ICT in specific industries through the
mobilization of industry partnerships and users
The idea is that contractual and relational governance have not
been examined at the routine level in projects and it is not clear
which of these government mechanisms can support projects to
become more relationally competent

3. Relational capabilities
The set of routines that support exchange and interaction
• Part of the dynamic capabilities approach which is part of RBV
• Barrow field, concept is usually dispersed under different terminology
• Focused on dyadic alliancing, partnering or networking between
permanent organizational forms
• Difficulty in understanding how these routines actually work / lack of
empirical studies
• Theory has tried to connect contractual and relational governance but not
necessarily relational capabilities

4. Definitions and differences
• Capabilities are defined as the knowledge residing in the routines
of an organisation to integrate and coordinate its specific
resources, skills and competencies to perform various activities
(Helfat and Peteraf, 2003, Zollo & Winter 2002).
• Contractual capability refers to successful management of the
contingencies involved in transaction relationships with other
parties, and their implications for the efficiency and effectiveness
of service delivery (Argyres and Mayer, 2007).
• Relational capability refers to the application of socially complex
routines, procedures and policies in inter-organisational
relationships (Johnson et al., 2004). Relational capable
organisations invest in relation-specific assets, exchange
knowledge with each other, combine complementary but scarce
resources, and govern their relationships to achieve successful
outcomes (Dyer and Singh, 1998).

5. Theories
• Contractual vs relational governance = safeguards against
opportunities vs trust and informal relational norms
• Relational capabilities are based on routines steming from long
term strong ties / alliance or partnering between organizations
that have a history and knowledge about each other
Conditions: A review of the literature revealed 6 components of
relational capabilities including 19 routines and
Variables: 13 managerial and 15 governance mechanisms within
contracts

6. Equivalent theories in projects
• Relational capabilities are not the result of long term strong ties
or histories of collaboration / they consist of temporary short
lived weak ties that get easily decoupled
• The time to develop relational routines is short, there is a lot of
risk which project partners compensate with swift trust, and the
levels of knowledge exchange and learning are spontaneous and
more demanding
• Formal governance structures do not support the development
of relational routines and they have an inverse relationship
• Interactions and relations in projects are non-linear, more
unpredictable, have shorter life cycles and are more complex
• Project people have to go beyond demarcated boundaries to
create relational routines despite governance demarcations

7. Research Questions
While prior studies have started to shed light on the interplay of both
governance mechanisms, limited in-depth, empirical research
examines which parts of relational routines are actualized and which
governance mechanisms contribute to the development of relational
capabilities and how (Klein Woolthuis et al., 2005; Zheng et al., 2008)
Which components of relational capabilities become routinized in
projects?
and
Which contractual mechanisms enhance, support or inhibit the
routinization of relational capabilities in projects and how?

8. Research Method: Qualitative Comparative
Analysis of multiple case studies
• 17 EU FP projects
• QCA uses binary coding and Boolean algebra to deduct from
qualitative in-depth data TRANSLATION
1. Create an analytic frame from literature (conditions and
variables)
2. Create truth tables for each condition based on the analytic
frame
3. Find configurations that are significant across the cases
4. Find the significant routines and the significant governance
variables in these routines
5. Suggest the contractual elements that would benefit the
development of relational capabilities in projects

9. Research Method: Qualitative Comparative
Analysis of multiple case studies
• A combination of deduction and induction
• The selection of conditions and variables from literature to create a
frame of analysis to quantify in binary terms qualitative data
• The algorithms result in configurations of variables that show the
relationships between the variables within each condition not just
one variable to one condition
• This also explains why these variables are negative or positive
towards the condition since the quantification is based on rich data
• Therefore QCA answers both:
1. What (deduction) but in a more configurational way
2. Why (induction) because the configurations are based on the
causality within the interviews
• in projects

10. 1. Create an analytic frame from literature
• Conditions: a compilation of the relational routines from the literature
• Variables: the main governance mechanisms in contracts

11. 2. Create truth tables on the analytic frame
one for every of the 17 projects

12. 2. Create truth tables from the 17 projects
one for every of the 19 relational routines

13. 3. Configurations
Find configurations that are
significant across the cases
To find the configurations that are significant across the
cases I selected the ones with consistency of >70% and
coverage of cases >50%
ALIGN
REPET
Purpose*~speci*~routinegov
plan*measure* ~toolmech* ~input* ~routinegov
KNWSHARE
KNWOV
Purpose*~input*valuecapture
automatic*feedback1*repetition* ~plan* ~modul*zone* ~toolmecha
IDEAS
purpose*~automatic*~feedback1*~repetition*~interrupt*~novel*~interdep*problemsolv*~tech*~customrr*~si
tuatedact1*~cont*~puncert*~plan*~com*~execontrol*~measure*~problesolvcycl*~situatedact2*~speci*~trigg
er*~modul*~zone*~toolmechan*~input*~routinegov
purpose*problemsolv*situatedact1*~puncert*~plan*~com*problemsolvingcycl*speci*~zone*~routinegov*valu
ecapture
DESIGN2

14. Relational capable
project
Realization
component
4. Find the
significant
routines and
the significant
governance
variables in
these routines
REPET
Assessment
component
Project
Management
Governance
Access to
knowledge
ALIGN
KNOWLEDGE
SHARE
KNOWLEDGE
OVERLAP
DESIGN2
Co-innovation
component
Contract
Governance
Access to
opportunity
IDEAS

15. 5. Suggest the contractual elements that would benefit the
development of relational capabilities in projects
• our assumptions about the nature and development of relational
capabilities are incorrect since they are not applicable to all types of
organizations, indicating that the contractual governance should differ
as well
• In projects:
• To align agendas you need contracts without tight specifications of
product and activities
• To make relational activities into repetitive routines the manager
should plan for the interaction and use measurements as points of
discussion rather than reporting mechanisms dictated by contractual
specifications
• To create successful knowledge sharing it is necessary to create
opportunities for interaction with the explicit purpose to find common
ground amongst the goals of the participants – what each of them
wants to get from the project – but also with strong focus on the
value that the project needs to deliver to the user

16. 5. Suggest the contractual elements that would benefit the
development of relational capabilities in projects
• To successfully utilize knowledge overlap amongst project partners,
there should be systematically repetitive opportunities for interaction
and feedback to the point that they become automatic and these
activities should be tolerate even if the project plan or reporting are
skewed. This is an important element to overcome the natural
modularization in complex projects.
• To exploit ideas emerging within interaction networks no element
within the contract should inhibit purposeful alignment of goals with
the sole exception the definition of the problem that the project needs
to solve
• In design interactions the focus should be on the value created to
the user and the problem to be solved as manifested in the contract
while purposeful interaction and continuous feedback should be let
free of contractual monitoring and feedback mechanisms

17. Any Questions please ask