The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective

JPMA-02039; No of Pages 10

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx – xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective Petra M. Bosch-Sijtsema a,⁎, Janni Tjell a,b a

Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Division of Construction Management, Sven Hultinsgata 8, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden b NCC AB, Gothenburg, Sweden Received 13 July 2016; received in revised form 26 April 2017; accepted 22 May 2017 Available online xxxx

Abstract Within this article the concept of space as a social phenomenon is discussed in relation to collaboration and knowledge sharing within construction design projects. Space has been neglected in project literature and we argue for the relevance to introduce a spatial focus in project literature. Through a qualitative study of three construction design project teams, we collected observations and interview data. In order to support collaboration and knowledge sharing in a project design team we found that (a) spatial awareness within a project space becomes relevant, (b) the possibility for all team members to influence the design, the physical presence of the client and a facilitating leadership style creates a trusting working environment, (c) and different perceptions of project space have implications for engaging in the space. A spatial perspective gives new insights in project teams and how space can support collaboration and knowledge sharing. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Project space; Knowledge sharing; Collaboration; Construction design projects

1. Introduction Within this article the concept of space as a social phenomenon is discussed in relation to collaboration and knowledge sharing within construction design projects and we argue for the relevance to introduce spatial theory in project literature. An important part in the literature on project organizing is the focus on the temporary organization or project, which is a set of organizational actors working together on a complex task over a limited period of time (Bakker, 2010). Projects are usually one-off or highly customized and they operate in multiple cooperative forms with other firms (cf. Packendorff, 1995; Söderlund, 2011). Within project literature the concept of knowledge sharing and learning has often been discussed in ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema), [email protected] (J. Tjell).

terms of how organizations learn from projects (Bartsch et al., 2013; Engwall, 2003; Scarbrough et al., 2004), how learning occurs between projects (Prencipe and Tell, 2001), and how project team members learn from each other (Bosch-Sijtsema and Henriksson, 2014). Knowledge sharing is defined in this study as the exchange of explicit and tacit knowledge relevant to the team task and involves interaction and communication among team members (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Lee et al., 2010). Collaboration and knowledge sharing are however also known as complex. This complexity is found in design project teams in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry that often consist of multiple disciplines which typically represent different organizations and project members that cross technical and sometimes geographical boundaries (Chiu, 2002; Dainty et al., 2006; Gray and Hughes, 2001; Moum, 2010). Furthermore, a large part of the knowledge that has to be shared within such a project is embedded, contextualized, tacit and sticky (Bosch-Sijtsema and Henriksson, 2014; Hatem et al., 2012;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009 0263-7863/00/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009

2

P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

cf. Von Hippel, 1994), which makes it difficult to share with other disciplines that work in different organizational contexts. Sharing of embedded and contextualized knowledge is often considered to be supported by interaction, face-to-face communication as well as collocation (Newell et al., 2009; Scarbrough et al., 2004). For multi-organizational design projects working with complex tasks within a limited period of time, the environment or space of the project team becomes relevant to study in relation to collaboration and knowledge sharing towards project success. Researchers mention that learning and knowledge sharing takes place as a social-spatial process (Sayer, 1985). While some authors discuss multiple forms of proximity not only geographically, but also constituted by contextual and social factors – space is a social phenomenon instead of a physical phenomenon (Mattes, 2012) and space is constituted through the countless practices of everyday life as much as we are constituted through them (Clegg and Kornberger, 2006). Space has been studied within an organizational context, and can influence how organizations function (Dale and Burrell, 2008; Kornberger and Clegg, 2004; Taylor and Spicer, 2007). However, literature focusing on organizational space has been allocated primarily to single and long-term organizations, in order to gain an understanding of how physical space impacts performance, how space relates to social relations and how space is experienced (Taylor and Spicer, 2007). Few studies have concentrated on studying projects from a spatial theoretical perspective to gain an understanding of a ‘project environment’ or ‘project space’ in terms of collaboration and sharing knowledge. The emphasis on space in a project-based environment becomes relevant to gain an understanding of space in projects and how a spatial perspective can give insight in project collaboration and knowledge sharing. We study these research questions in construction design projects who work collocated and use concurrent collaboration methods to design a structure. 2. A spatial perspective To gain insight into the concept of space in projects and how a spatial perspective can give insight in project collaboration and knowledge sharing, the theoretical framework discusses spatial theory. Spatial theory views space as socially produced and inversely spaces influence people's behaviour (Lefebvre, 1991; Simmel, 2009). Space is a social construct (Lefebvre, 1991). Lefebvre considered three elements that develop and influence our understanding of space: i) the interpretation of the physical space, ii) our prehistory, pre-knowledge, engagement, our value of the purpose and context, and mental status, and iii) our ability to connect in social interaction. These three elements are dependent on each other and cannot be studied alone. The constitution of a particular space is understood as a combined and reciprocal interplay of material and social interaction (Dale, 2005; Vásquez and Cooren, 2013). Research related to space has been wide spread and focuses on different aspects from sociology, geography and organizational theory. Topics discussed in spatial geography literature are related to knowledge sharing between project based networks, i.e., project

ecologies are discussed as a physical space network of partners collaborating in projects (Grabher, 2002b). Others have focused on social networks of regional spaces (Reimer et al., 2008). Space is a growing theme within organizational theory and is discussed from different viewpoints. From earlier reviews on organizational space, three different streams are studied: 1) physicality of space, 2) materialization of power relations and 3) experience of space (Dale and Burrell, 2008; Kornberger and Clegg, 2004; Taylor and Spicer, 2007). Concerning the physicality of space the emphasis in literature has often been on relating space to distance and proximity. Within this stream of research there has been a focus on space as an object, i.e., how a physical workplace impacts performance (Heerwagen et al., 2004; Hau et al., 2010; Kraut et al., 2002). Other studies focus more on implications of geographical and perceived distance and proximity. The concepts of proximity and collocation are perceived as beneficial for collaboration and are related to cognitive, emotional and behavioural elements that improve work processes (Kiesler and Cummings, 2002; Monge and Kirste, 1980; Olson et al., 2002). Proximity is defined by these authors as physical distance between people measured in units. Research on proximity also argues that a shared social physical setting affects the similarity of expectations and experiences of people and the development of a shared territory (Kiesler and Cummings, 2002). There have been a number of studies looking into implications of distance, as well as the use of different communication means like face-to-face or computer mediated communication for project work and construction design projects (see Hatem et al., 2012). Especially in relation to knowledge sharing, collocation has been mentioned as supporting rich face-to-face interaction, development of a shared context and facilitating tacit knowledge transfer (Grabher, 2002a; Kavanagh and Kelly, 2002; Koskinen et al., 2003). Other research state that for innovation and learning, geographical proximity is not necessary, but other factors like social proximity and cognitive proximity become relevant (Mattes, 2012). In the AEC industry, proximity of especially design teams is discussed to support collaboration and knowledge sharing (cf. Evbuomwan and Anumba, 1998; Garcia et al., 2004). Next to physicality of space, another category of spatial research focuses more on the relation between space and power and studies the impact of architecture and work space in relation to social relations, power (cf. Markus, 1993; van Marrewijk, 2010, Panayiotou and Kafiris, 2011) and organizational control (Dale, 2005). Studies mention that space can give information about power, position and importance (Panayiotou and Kafiris, 2011). Dale (2005) discusses how the material can be a physical extension to control relations and mentions different forms of spatial control through territory development, but also horizontal forms of control such as team-working and peer surveillance, and forms of surveillance via information and communications technologies (cf. Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992). However, space can also support a social landscape where social relations are mediated through spatial configurations (Halford, 2004). There are studies on how space is experienced and how space is a manifestation of our imagination (Cairns, 2002; Ford and Harding, 2004; Taylor and Spicer, 2007). Studies

Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009

P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

discuss narratives on organizational identity and culture (Ford and Harding, 2004; Taylor and Spicer, 2007; Yanow, 1995, 1998), and how individuals feel connected to an organization through either materiality in the form of signs, symbols and images (Dale, 2005). Recent work on space leaves behind the three conceptions of space, but focuses more on Lefebvre's later work on rhythm analysis (2004) which focuses on space in relation to the rhythms of everyday life. In this later work, space is viewed as an ongoing construct of multiple and heterogeneous sociomaterial interrelations, which coexist and affect each other (Vásquez and Cooren, 2013). Humans constantly constitute space through everyday life practices and humans are constituted through them as well (Clegg & Kornberger, 2006). This perspective provides a performative view of organization; one based on the configuration of relations between various human and nonhuman agents. Others discuss in this respect, ‘spacing’, which orients the understanding of organizational space towards its material, embodied, affective and minor configurations (Beyes and Steyaert, 2011). In this study, we focus primarily on space within project work in the AEC industry in which three different design teams were followed over a period of time. 3. Methodology To gain an understanding of space within a construction design team, a qualitative case study (cf. Easterby-Smith et al., 2014) on three construction design projects was applied. All three cases were in-house residential housing projects and had design-build contracts. The cases were selected because they were representative in size, budget as well as on their similarities regarding work method, physical setting and geographical collocation of the design team members. Furthermore, the involved design team members all were residents of the same Scandinavian country. The design team members worked in a collocated environment for a half or one full-day per week and were supported by structured methods and technologies to support collaboration and improve the exchange of knowledge during the design project. This approach can be related to Big room (Liker, 2004), extreme collaboration (Garcia et al., 2004), or integrated concurrent design (Evbuomwan and Anumba, 1998). Our study only followed the collocated sessions. All three projects were followed throughout the entire design process and a total of 26 semi-structured interviews were held with key members of the three projects. Many of these key members were engaged in two or three of the projects and were e.g., project manager (4 interviews), in-house client (3), architects (4), consultants like heat, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), structural engineers, electricity (9), and a representative of production (1). We also had five interviews with senior managers of the contractor firm who held the collocated sessions. The interviews followed a semi-structured guideline that focused on the concept of working collocated, the physical space, the team interaction and collaboration, project management, changes in management, roles and working processes through the concept. The interviews lasted between half an hour to one and a

3

half hour and were recorded, transcribed and coded. Table 1 presents an overview of the data collection per case study. We also had access to protocols and a project server, were all project related material was accessible to everyone involved. Additionally, we also performed observations (O'Toole and Were, 2008) of the collocated design sessions for a total of 60 h. These observations were based on a structured observation guideline in which we documented time stamps, activities, interactions, use of information technology, artefacts used, spatial configurations and movement. Extensive field notes were taken during these observations, as well as sketches of the lay-out and spatial configurations were made, movements and interactions between the team members were noted down and photographs were taken of activities, configurations and situations. The role of the researchers during the observations was one of a passive observer and the purpose of the observation was well known and accepted by everyone involved. For the data analysis, the data was first coded relatively open and the authors looked for major themes that came up. Initially we applied a colour coding scheme for different themes like physical space, leadership, team interaction, different roles, decision-making and benefits/hindrances of the concept. After this initial coding, several rounds of coding were performed in which the labelling of themes became more refined – the coding process has been done in relation to a grounded theory analysis approach (cf. Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The coding labels and themes were inspired by literature concerning space. After the coding of the interview data, we combined the interview data with the observations, sketches, interaction patterns and photographs. The studies were conducted at one of the largest contractor companies in the Nordic European AEC market. Case study A consisted of a core design team of 6–13 members, Case study B had a core design team of 8–12 members and Case C had a core design team of 8–10 members – the number of members present during collocated sessions fluctuated during the day as well as per meeting. All teams had the following disciplines represented at every collocated session: client, architecture, structural engineering, HVAC, electricity and project management (PM), forming the core design team. All three cases designed residential houses in the Gothenburg area in Sweden, and we followed the projects during two phases: (1) the schematic design and (2) the detailed design phase. During the schematic design the overall design system is settled and in the detailed design phase the detailed drawings and documentation for production are produced. 4. Findings The findings' section is structured around a number of interrelations between space and the design team behaviour. Table 1 Overview of the collected qualitative data. Case study A

Case study B

Case study C

Size of the core design team 6–13 members 8–12 members 8–10 members Number of interviews 20 12 17 Number of full/half day 4 (16 h) 3 (16 h) 6 (28 h) observations

Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009

4

P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

The findings were within spatial awareness, interrelations between the team within the particular project space as well as in terms of perceptions of control or freedom within the space. 4.1. Spatial awareness within the project space According to several interviewees, the physical space influences the design team member's abilities to create small subgroup meetings as well as impacts interaction with the other team members. The size and lay-out of the physical room influence how the design team members behave, interact, move around, and how members interact with physical artefacts in the room. From our observations, we noticed that the size can inhibit dynamics in the design team. “We should have had a room that would have … invited the job to go smoother, different group constellations during a day etc. so it needs to be bigger and have more wall space…” (Project manager). The lay-out of the room supported different forms of collaboration. The room offered normal seating opportunities but also offered multiple areas in which subgroups could discuss particular questions or design problems. However, even though the room offered these possibilities, team members perceived the physical space to be relatively small and limiting their movability. For example: “I also think that [the design space] is a bit too small, at least during this phase where we sometimes are a lot of people in the room, then it can become difficult to move around in the room” (Client). From our observations, an important finding is the awareness of the space for team members within the physical space. We noticed that the team

members hardly moved around in the room and we saw that especially when there were many people in the room, most people stayed put in the same chair and place throughout the entire day. The project manager tried to change the seating arrangements depending on type of task and number of team members for the workday, but even though members sat in different groups, they would often not use the rest of the space for their work. Furthermore, team members did not adjust the space or furniture to fit their way of work. However, we also observed over time, that team members who were more experienced with working in the project space, started using the space. Table 2 shows the observation notes of a subgroup meeting between the architect, client, structural engineer and project manager – members who all were used to working within the space. During this meeting, the members interacted actively, moved around the room and towards the whiteboard to work jointly on a complex design problem (see Table 2). In this example, the project members use the space, work with multiple artefacts like 2D drawings, notes, sketches and 3D models to share knowledge and jointly solve a complex issue. In all of the cases, the teams apply a collaborative planning approach to develop a joint time planning which is visualized on the wall of the physical room. For this activity, it is important that people can position themselves near the visual time schedule and can jointly discuss the planning activities. However, as observed in several cases, the physical size and lay-out of the space inhibited people to stand near the planning scheme that was visualized on the wall. In case two, people are

Table 2 Extract of observations of case one. Activity

Description

Project members are seated at two tables The groups are divided over two tables. All have notes, 2D drawings and watching 3D model projection. laptops in front of them. Worktable one has Architect, structural Engineer and Client, Worktable two has the PM and the 3D model coordinator (who shows the 3D model). PM walks towards projected 3D-model PM goes to projector and points to the wall where they are in the 3D-model. on the wall. Discussion on particular item (staircase) – ‘is this correct, and even possible?’ Client states this is a problem and is not according to regulations. PM and client starts a discussion towards architect and structural engineer if this is legally correct or not. Architect (external) walks towards Architect shows the ‘how’ and ‘what’ concerning this problem (points to projected whiteboard and projected 3D model. model) and tries to explain in more detail: ‘Now we take it very easy’ he says. Client moves to 3D projection. Client and PM state once more that they are almost sure that this is not allowed Whole groups form around PM. (legal) – not a safe structure Client moves to 3D projected model on the wall, discusses with Architect. Structural Engineer comes closer. Architect states: ‘then we have a problem – that needs to be changed’. The architect moves back to the table and starts to make notes concerning this. All move towards the PM (location) (client, structural engineer, and architect) and go through the 2D-model on paper (not the projected 3D model) spread out on the table. PM is sitting, others are standing around her to study the 2D drawing. Trying to see how this was designed on the 2D model and how they can solve this issue. Together they stand around the 2D drawing on the table and discuss this. Structural Engineer walks towards Structural engineer starts developing (drawing) a solution on the whiteboard behind projected model. the projected 3D model. Explains while he is drawing. Architect walks towards drawing Architect joins in the discussion, and discusses this solution together with the and projected model. structural engineer. Both point and draw on the whiteboard behind the 3D visualization as well as next to the model to clarify a new solution. The whole group agrees on the new solution and the PM makes the final decision that they will continue with the new solution in the design.

Artifact 3D model projected on the wall 2D drawings, notes, sketches 3D model on projector Requirement specifications

3D model on projector Whiteboard 2D drawings Requirement specifications

3D model on projector Whiteboard 2D model Notes

Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009

P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

squeezed – standing behind each other – in front of the visual planning board and in case three with a larger project team, people positioned themselves in a semi-circle and sat down with up to four-meter distance to the wall. While the team was sitting in a semi-circle facing the planning board, the project manager went through the different planning activities and read the post-it notes with different activities per discipline out loud to the team. The team engaged verbally, but sat passively on their chairs instead of actively moving to and from the visual planning board and interacting supported by artifact. 4.2. Developing an environment for knowledge sharing From our observations and interviews we noticed that many team members appreciated the possibility to collaborate in a designated space even if it was only for one day a week. With help of this space, they mentioned that they gained a better understanding of the other design team members' way of working and their disciplines. Furthermore, several mentioned that they appreciated the social interaction during breaks and lunch time. 4.2.1. Possibility to influence and be heard Interviewees mentioned a number of examples that indicated how they collaborated within the team and that they perceived this collaboration different in relation to other types of construction projects. “It is a little chaotic sometimes, I mean there are certain key-actors like (the client) and (the PM) and everybody wants them to be a part of their discussions, and almost all questions rest on them, so therefore it can be a little tight. In a conventional project, everybody is listening to everybody's questions. That can obviously, both be good and bad, but the good thing is that everybody can be heard. Now it can happen that there has been a discussion that I have not been part of, because I have been part of another discussion – but I'm affected by it anyway” (Structural Engineer). This structural engineer discusses that in the collocated project working space she is less able to be part of all sub-group discussions, while she feels that she would like to be on top of these. Also, the project manager acknowledges that she has less control, but she prioritizes particular discussions and questions during the work sessions. “When I am in the project location I try to do as much as possible, but I cannot be everywhere, I′m sitting in small workgroups and I′m selecting the workgroups after what I think is most relevant to the project” (PM). For the one day work sessions in the collocated space, members mentioned that they collaborated more closely with team members from other disciplines, e.g., architect and electricity consultant. Others mentioned that they felt that members had respect for each other and their different disciplines and therefore they had a better dialogue in relation to more traditional projects. Due to the fact that members spend a whole day together, they have the possibility to involve themselves in different questions and details. The architect mentioned the following: “From an architect's perspective, it is nice to be able to discuss small things along the process …e.g., if I'm discussing

5

something with the electricity consultant – and we use the first project as a reference project – then I can highlight something that I did not think was 100% right in the first project, and I can ask the electricity consultant how I could design it differently this time. And then most likely it can be done. … compared to all the other questions that you have in such a size project, it is a small question. But the fact that you can take 10 minutes to discuss such a question provides the opportunity to create a more interesting solution still within the budget of the project. Such questions would most likely not have been discussed in a conventional “design meeting”, there we would have had to discuss only the big and very important questions, in order to not expand the meeting time” (Architect). See also Table 3 in which case study three had a discussion concerning the time planning and HVAC discussed their way of designing a building – this discussion helped the design team to understand how different disciplines work and they organized a solution that was suitable for both HVAC and structural engineering. The team members mentioned that they were able to solve problems during these sessions, and that these took less time than in traditional projects. Furthermore, they also felt that decisions were made faster and that they had a possibility to influence these decisions throughout the discussions. “you realize that you actually are able to have influence on a lot of things” (geotechnical engineer). Some interviewees mentioned that if even more effort would have been allocated to facilitate the development of social relations and connections this would have influenced the design team positively “I think we could win a lot by spending more time on “coffee breaks” to get to know each other better” (Consultant). Other effects of having a good social relation and connection to your co-workers is that it becomes easier to discuss finer details and explain challenges “But what I think is a lot better with the project space is that it is easier to explain my work to others – and that feels good” (Consultant). “So therefore [the design space] fits my way of working like a ‘hand in glove’. It is here that you gain synergies from interacting with other actors to really produce an end product that really is great” (Consultant). 4.2.2. Presence of client In the studied project space, the client was present during the one-day collocated settings and this had an impact on the collaboration within the team. The role of the client representative has changed from being an abstract and more distant role for the project team members to an active team member who is present during the meetings. “By using this method [collocation design approach] there is focus on the client's needs and wishes – just for that simple reason that they are present! And through that they can direct more – and say what they would like etc.” (Consultant). Also, the client notices a change in the way of working based on their physical presence “I did not know the consultants in the same way as I do now, where we even sometimes have lunch together”, “Maybe I have become more visible to the other consultants and they know that it is me who is in charge at the end if they want to change anything. Earlier,

Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009

6

P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Observations of case three. Activity

Description

PM stands before time schedule.

PM talks to Structural engineering1. Structural engineering needs a design from HVAC for internal inspection. PM checks with HVAC – is this OK? HVAC states: ‘What are you saying? – This is not even an option!!’ Structural Engineering1 and HVAC have a discussion on this. Structural engineering needs this deliverable for their structural design deliverable. HVAC states: ‘I cannot do this as well – I have too much to do’ Structural engineer1: ‘I need this now’! otherwise I cannot deliver. HVAC explains that he first needs to finalize all the shafts before he can design this part. Structural engineer mentions that the deliverable is needed before they can deliver. HVAC starts explaining how HVAC normally work: ‘it is important that others understand how HVAC works – we do not start from the cellar as other disciplines, but with the windows, and the cellar is the last part’. I cannot promise anything before week 26. PM asks if this is OK? Structural engineer1 – no, then we cannot do anything PM- shall we postpone the delivery? Structural engineer1: states that they can deliver, but it will not be a complete delivery. HVAC and Structural engineer2 discuss what HVAC needs in order to deliver for the deliverable of structural engineering. Structural engineer1/2 – this is OK, sounds OK – not a problem After a discussion with PM, structural engineers 1 and 2, and HVAC, HVAC decides that he is able to deliver an early scenario – max worst case scenario. Structural engineering 1 states that this is enough to know the size of holes and then we can adjust this afterwards in our design.

The rest of the group sits in semi-circle facing the time schedule. HVAC sits next to Structural engineer1.

I think it has been more that the project manager has had to say ‘I have to ask the client’. Now when I am there, they can ask directly” (Client). Design team members are now able to communicate directly with the client and vice versa, while in more conventional projects the client would primarily discuss the design with the project manager.

and responsibility by being engaged in the project” (PM2). “… So I think that it is a big difference that you now have to rely more on your co-workers and feel comfortable with each other” (PM1). These new ways of working have implications on how the team collaborates within the project space. 4.3. Experiencing project space

4.2.3. Facilitating role of the project manager (PM) Many commented on the role of the project design manager as a facilitator within the project space. The PM mentioned that such a facilitator role places more responsibility on the involved actors in the design project. “I mean it is not like that there is nothing happening during a project day, it is very much depending on oneself what you get out of a day. You need to have your own agenda so that you progress in your own work and which is in the interest of the project obviously… It is more about them (project members) coming with their questions, receive answers and coordinate and control that everything is as it should be” (PM1). The PM also actively engages in the physical space, moves around and uses most of the artefacts to support discussions and decisions that are made. The PM is a kind of a role model in using the project space for the rest of the team. With this way of working the project manager has a more facilitating role, guides the discussions towards making decisions and supports the design team in their work. One of the PM mentions the following: “I think so, you obviously still have the responsibility but now it feels like that we are more sharing that responsibility. You can ask others to do things, so that not everything is ending up at my table. In a conventional project, it is easy that everything ends up at the project managers' table … but here everybody is in the room and they see their own role

Another element of the project space is how people experience this space. Some interviewees described that willingness and eagerness to collaborate in the space are important elements: “It is very important that people are engaged in a project because you are creating an environment that requires that you are engaged and that you are sharing. If the people present (at the design meeting) are not comfortable in this way of working, then it does not work and that becomes clear admittedly” (PM2). From the data, it was found that team members experienced the project space differently. For a certain group, the project space was perceived as an opportunity for personal development “I think that I personally develop” (PM1). “For me this was a great opportunity to be there, listen to what was being said and gain an overview of the progress in the project and make sure that what was being developed complied with my ideas and thoughts” (Client). For this group, the space supports learning opportunities and creates a better understanding of the overall process to some of the team members. Others mentioned that they can take learnings from the other design team members back towards their own home-company: “It feels like we have upgraded our BIM [Building Information Modelling] standard here at our office to comply with [the companies] standard” (Consultant). The group who perceived

Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009

P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

the space as developing, were also the most active members in the project space – active in terms of using the space, sharing information, asking questions etc. However not all project members considered the collocated project space as something positive. Some of the involved design team members were more sceptical and felt that they wasted their time in the project space. This scepticism was observed when members were not actively engaged and came to the meetings unprepared. “When I come to the project space, I place my drawings on the table, and start to get myself updated. Because it is seldom that I have prepared myself the day before. … and then I have a list of questions from the last sessions ready … and then I sit and wait for my chance to get to talk to the architect or the PM. … The architect is overloaded, which means that we have a hard time getting our questions through to the architect. So therefore, I can think from our perspective that it is not really time efficient, and particularly when we are often working on a set price, then we waste a lot of time there” (External consult). Those project members who perceived the project space to be a disadvantage to their own way of working felt less inclined to engage within the project space. Another element discussed by the project manager was that the work of the design team becomes more visible not only for the PM but also for the rest of the team: “… now I really have to rely on the consultants taking their responsibility. And now they are sitting in a group where they have to show what they have done, both to me and the rest of the group, because I can only be at one place at the time” (PM). For part of the design team this visibility of each other's work was an eye-opener and helped gain understanding of other disciplines, while for other team members this might have been a hindrance because they might be held accountable. 4.3.1. Accessibility Another element which was observed and mentioned by the team members was accessibility. Accessibility was found in two parts: 1) accessibility to the project space was limited to members from the contractor organization – the organization who organized the project team meetings. The accessibility to the space as well as additional spaces like bathrooms and kitchen was restricted for ‘external’ team members coming from other organizations and they had to gain access through other ‘internal’ members of the team – those who worked at the contractor firm. The project team members are part of the project team, but the moment they step outside the physical project space, they are closed off of the project space and the organization in which the physical space is kept. The limitation in accessing the space had an influence on how the team members felt welcome within the project space. Gaining access to the space was felt important in particular for the external team members for identifying them as an equal member of the team “I mean it is small things, but another example, if they [external consultants] want to go to the bathroom, they either have to borrow an access-card from one of us who are working at [the project space] or they have to go out to the reception to ask them to give them access to the room again” (PM). 2) the

7

second type of accessibility mentioned primarily by external members was gaining access to internet and online project information. This type of access was mentioned to be highly relevant but was also seen by external consultant as the most disruptive element when not working properly. This lack of access hindered external team members from actively engaging themselves in the physical project space. In one of the cases a member from a consultant organization mentioned that her firm did not let her access her own computer files outside of the firewall of their own firm and this hindered her from working within the project space. Accessibility for online work within the physical space was important, but also accessibility to the ‘home-front’ from different firms represented in the team became relevant for cooperation within the team. 5. Discussion We have studied construction design projects from a spatial perspective to gain an understanding how an emphasis on space and social spatial processes are related to collaboration and knowledge sharing. For project collaboration and knowledge sharing between multiple disciplines across multiple organizations, the environment for sharing knowledge becomes important (Newell et al., 2009; Scarbrough et al., 2004; Hatem et al., 2012). Knowledge sharing takes place as a social spatial process (Sayer, 1985) and therefore the focus on project space as a social phenomenon becomes relevant to study. While the relevance of space has been lifted up in organizational literature (Dale and Burrell, 2008; Kornberger and Clegg, 2004; Taylor and Spicer, 2007), within project literature, there is hardly any research that focuses on space in relation to projects and project work. From our study, we focused on space as a social phenomenon, which is constituted through everyday practices as well as humans are constituted through space (Clegg & Kornberger, 2006). Below we discuss three findings that became apparent when studying construction design projects from a spatial perspective. 5.1. Spatial awareness The physical project space in our study was designed to support face-to-face communication and knowledge sharing within an environment in which members worked collocated one day per week. The space was developed to create a type of spatial awareness of peoples' work, activities and visualize this work within the project space. Spatial awareness is often connected to the ability of humans to integrate spatial information from the environment into a cognitive map and is often studied in relation to wayfinding and navigation (Neale, 1997; Passini, 1984). Awareness of a space can relate to a spatial awareness of the physical project space in terms of navigation and finding the information on the walls and in the space to make decisions. However, next to a physical spatial awareness, also social awareness of the space in terms of the people involved in the space became relevant. On the one hand project members perceived that the limited size of the collocated facility inhibited them to move around easily. However, on the other hand, even when there were possibilities for small subgroup

Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009

8

P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

discussions, project members did not navigate and move around much in the room and often stayed in their particular working space. Only those members who had experience in working in the physical space, had developed a spatial awareness and were moving around within the room and interacting with other project members. Even though spatial awareness is often used in geography and on wayfinding in organizations, it might be relevant to study spatial awareness for project space. Members only work for a limited time in a design project and in our cases, members changed over time, therefore it becomes relevant to look at how project members can spatially re-orientate themselves within the space, and how to find and use different forms of visual information – decision lists and 3D models – within the space. 5.2. Project team environment Our findings showed that when working in a collocated project space for one day a week, social relations and power relations materialized within the project design team. Within the studied project space, work relations, interaction patterns and new relations were developed. In studies on project teams, face-to-face interaction is to a large extent structured based on role-behaviour, of which specifics are negotiated in situ (Bakker, 2010; Bechky, 2006). When observing the socio-spatial processes of the project team, knowledge sharing and collaboration were taking place in the project space. In construction, particular roles are more present during construction design meetings, these are the client, project manager and architect, while other roles have been found to communicate less during design meetings (Foley and Macmillan, 2005). Within the project space, with the possibility to work together for a full day, the influence of the team members becomes more balanced and all disciplines had the possibility to interact and collaborate, while some were hesitant to take this opportunity, others embraced the possibility to influence and be heard in the project, and were willing to share specific knowledge and ways of working with other disciplines. The presence of the client during the working day influences the communication and power relations within the team. Traditionally, in construction design, the role of the client has been relatively abstract and most importantly “distant” during the actual problem solving and design activities. In the collocated environment, the client is physically present, which enables the team to build up a relation with the client, but also to gain a better understanding of the client's needs and wishes. Next to possibilities to discuss design solutions with other project members and the client, the role of the project manager has been one of facilitating the collaboration and making sure that the design team members have access to needed information to develop the design. The concept applied by the construction design teams in a collocated working space is based on trust in that all project members will deliver their work in time. This mutual trust between the project team, client and project leader can be supported by geographical proximity and face-to-face contact (cf. Grabher, 2002a; Kavanagh and Kelly, 2002; Koskinen et al., 2003), but is also something that is build up throughout the project with help of the project manager.

Leaders are believed to play the primary role in establishing and developing trust in teams and organizations (Gillespie & Mann 2004; Lee et al., 2010) and a consultative type of leadership is associated with trust of the team towards the leader. According to Lee et al. (2010), in such a way leaders create opportunities that stimulate and encourage knowledge sharing between team members. 5.3. Experiencing space While geographical proximity supports sharing more tacit types of knowledge and supports learning by doing through visualization and interaction, as well as development of trust (Mattes, 2012; Newell et al., 2009; Scarbrough et al., 2004), literature also clearly states that geographical proximity is not necessary for sharing of knowledge (Mattes, 2012). For sharing knowledge, it is important that project members have the intent to interact and share information. Through the spatial focus on a project, space is a configuration of relations between humans and nonhuman agents, and is constituted through countless practices of everyday life (Clegg & Kornberger, 2006). Space in this perspective is defined as a construct of ongoing sociomaterial interrelations (Beyes and Steyaert, 2011; Vásquez and Cooren, 2013). Through our observations we noticed different behaviour as well as embodiment within the physical project space. The project space is an open space and project members work there for one day a week and their work, activities and deliverables become rather visible in the project space. While the concept of the collocated project space is to create an environment for developing social relations, interaction and trust to collaborate (see e.g., Garcia et al., 2004), the project space can also be perceived as a form of organizational control. The visible control of the project leader has been replaced by a more subjective collegial control through the high level of visibility of the work performed within the open space (cf. Dale, 2005; Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992). From the data, we observed that members show their experiences in their engagement and embodiment within the space. The personal experience and conception of the space is shown to influence how individuals experience the space and how they behave in this space. Mattes (2012) discusses in this respect the terms organizational and institutional proximity, when project members either work within the same organization – in the studied cases the members of the contractor firm – or follow similar institutional values and norms. Team members who appreciated the spatial concept, perceived the project space as having a potential for personal growth and development, and they were much more inclined to collaborate and share knowledge with the other team members. In contrast, if the time spend in the project space was considered to be a waste of time, the engagement in the space was limited to a minimum, and project members sometimes showed frustration or irritation and would often not use the physical space or interact with artefacts. Team members who experienced the project space as negative could experience the collocated project space as an additional less visible organizational control of the contractor firm to check upon their work (cf. Dale, 2005).

Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009

P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

Another example of control could be observed by the fact that external consultants could not access necessary spaces outside of the project space and sometimes the internet. The physical space in terms of material accessibility and boundaries can include or exclude, and define those who are in the project as opposed to those who are outside of it (Hernes, 2004). The way space is organized shapes how people shape their activities, interaction and gives meaning to our experience and sense of identity (Panayiotou and Kafiris, 2010). Especially for project teams that cross multiple organizational and structural boundaries, it is relevant to discuss organizational and institutional proximity in relation to organizational control for a project space. 5.4. Towards the concept of project space Literature on space within organizations has primarily focused on (a) the physicality of space in terms of workplaces (Heerwagen et al., 2004), distance and proximity (Allen, 1977; Kiesler and Cummings, 2002), (b) the materialization of power relations (Markus, 1993; Panayiotou and Kafiris, 2011) and (c) the experience of space in terms of personal experience, conceptions, organizational identity and culture (Ford and Harding, 2004; Taylor and Spicer, 2007; Yanow, 1995, 1998). However, later work has a performative view on space in which space is an ongoing construct of multiple and heterogeneous sociomaterial interrelations (Beyes and Steyaert, 2011; Vásquez and Cooren, 2013). While most of the spatial literature has focused on single organizations, it becomes important to study interorganisational project teams from a spatial perspective. From our findings from the collocated project working space, we found examples of how the project team behaves, interacts, and shares knowledge through spacing in which space is understood towards material, embodied, affective and minor configurations (Beyes and Steyaert, 2011). We discuss examples in the paper of the interrelation between space and collaboration and knowledge sharing in terms of: spatial awareness and developments of spatial awareness, team interaction in which a team environment is discussed that can support trust and knowledge sharing, and finally examples of how team members experience the project space which is reflected in their behaviour and how they use the physical space. Therefore, it becomes relevant to acknowledge the relevance of space in a project team in relation to how project members can be supported to collaborate and share knowledge and we argue to introduce spatial theory into project literature. A spatial perspective has been neglected in project literature, but could extend project team related research in terms of answering a request for further research towards the conditions in which interaction, collaboration and sharing knowledge are principally emergent (Bakker, 2010). These conditions can be the spatial configurations and the ongoing constructs of social material interrelations. Bakker (2010) discusses the relevance to distinguish between studies on collocated and geographically distributed project teams. Whereas the spatial proximity is both from our findings as well as from literature relevant for interaction and knowledge sharing, due to possibilities for tacit

9

knowledge sharing, rich face-to-face interaction and developing of a shared context (Grabher, 2002a; Hatem et al., 2012; Kavanagh and Kelly, 2002). With a focus on project space a practical implication is that it becomes important to review collaboration processes of project teams, paying specific attention to social-spatial processes that can support collaboration and knowledge sharing across organizational and disciplinary boundaries within a project. In our cases the project design manager played a role model to support social-spatial processes within the project team and can in such a way create a trusting environment in which team members can share knowledge. With help of a theoretical spatial lens, the notion of a project space receives a different meaning and highlights a number of elements that would need further research. Our research has only studied the project team while they were working together in a collocated space. Future research should also include how project members collaborate with the team outside the physical space in order to gain a complete overview of project space and project spacing. Another future focus could be to study social networks and strengths of ties within project spaces. Acknowledgements We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and we express our gratitude to the Swedish construction industry's organization for research and development (SBUF 12714) and the construction company NCC for supporting this research financially. References Allen, T., 1977. Managing the Flow of Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Bakker, R.M., 2010. Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a systematic review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12 (4), 466–486. Bartsch, V., Ebers, M., Maurer, I., 2013. Learning in project-based organizations: the role of project teams' social capital for overcoming barriers to learning. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (2), 239–251. Bechky, B.A., 2006. Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organ. Sci. 17 (1), 3–21. Beyes, T., Steyaert, C., 2011. Spacing organization: non-representational theory and performing organizational space. Organization 19 (1), 45–61. Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M., Henriksson, L.-H., 2014. Managing projects with distributed and embedded knowledge through interactions. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (8), 1432–1444. Cairns, G., 2002. Aesthetics, morality and power: design as espoused freedom and implicit control. Hum. Relat. 55 (7), 799–820. Chiu, M.-L., 2002. An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Des. Stud. 23 (2), 187–210. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. (Eds.), 2006. Space, organizations and management theory. Liber, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 143–162. Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D.E., 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J. Manag. 23 (3), 239–290. Dainty, A.R.J., Moore, D., Murray, M., 2006. Communication in Construction: Theory and Practice. Taylor and Francis, Oxford. Dale, K., 2005. Building a social materiality: spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization 12 (5), 649–678. Dale, K., Burrell, G., 2008. The Spaces of Organisation and the Organisation of Space. Power, Identity & Materiality at Work. Palgrave, New York. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P., 2014. Management Research. fourth ed. Sage, London.

Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009

10

P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell / International Journal of Project Management xx (2017) xxx–xxx

Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Res. Policy 32 (5), 789–808. Evbuomwan, N.F., Anumba, C., 1998. An integrated framework for concurrent life-cycle design and construction. Adv. Eng. Softw. 29 (7–9), 587–597. Foley, J., Macmillan, S., 2005. Patterns of interaction in construction team meetings. CoDesign 1 (1), 19–37. Ford, J., Harding, N., 2004. We went looking for an organization but could find only metaphysics of its presence. Sociology 38 (4), 815–830. Garcia, A.C.B., Kunz, J., Ekstrom, M., Kiviniema, A., 2004. Building a project ontology with extreme collaboration and virtual design and construction. Adv. Eng. Inform. 18 (2), 71–83. Gillespie, N.A., Mann, L., 2004. Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. J. Manag. Psychol. 19 (6), 588–607. Grabher, G., 2002a. Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary collaboration in social context. Reg. Stud. 36 (3), 205–214. Grabher, G., 2002b. The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams. Reg. Stud. 36 (3), 245–262. Gray, C., Hughes, W., 2001. Building Design Management. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford. Halford, S., 2004. Towards a sociology of organizational space. Sociol. Res. Online 9 (http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/1/halford.html). Hatem, W.A., Kwan, A., Miles, J., 2012. Comparing the effectiveness of face to face and computer mediated collaboration. Adv. Eng. Inform. 26 (2), 383–395. Hau, Y., Loftness, V., Heerwagen, J., Powel, K.M., 2010. Relationship between workplace spatial settings and occupant-perceived support for collaboration. Environ. Behav. 43 (6), 807–826. Heerwagen, J.H., Kampschroer, K., Powell, K.M., Loftness, V., 2004. Collaborative knowledge work environments. Build. Res. Inf. 32 (6), 510–528. Hernes, T., 2004. The Spatial Construction of Organization. vol. 12. John Benjamins Publishing. Kavanagh, D., Kelly, S., 2002. Sensemaking, safety, and situated communities in (con)temporary networks. J. Bus. Res. 55 (7), 583–594. Kiesler, S., Cummings, J.N., 2002. What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In: Hinds, P.J., Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Distributed Work. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 57–80. Kornberger, M., Clegg, S., 2004. Bringing space back in: organizing the generative building. Organ. Stud. 25 (7), 1095–1114. Koskinen, K.U., Pihlanto, P., Vanharanta, H., 2003. Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (4), 281–290. Kraut, R.E., Fussell, S.R., Brennan, S.E., Siegel, J., 2002. Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In: Hinds, P., Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Distributed work. MIT, Cambridge MA, pp. 137–162. Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., Wearing, A., 2010. Leadership and trust: their effect on knowledge sharing and team performance. Manag. Learn. 41 (4), 473–491. Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Donald Nicholson-Smith translation. Basil Blackwell, Oxford Originally published 1974. Lefebvre, H., 2004. Rhythmanalysis. trans. S. Elden and G. Moore. Continuum, London. Liker, J.K., 2004. The Toyota Way. McGraw-Hill, New York. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage 75. Markus, T., 1993. Buildings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types. Routledge, London and New York. Mattes, J., 2012. Dimensions of proximity and knowledge bases: innovation between spatial and non-spatial factors. Reg. Stud. 46 (8), 1085–1099.

Monge, R.R., Kirste, K.K., 1980. Measuring proximity in human organizations. Soc. Psychol. Q. 43, 110–115. Moum, A., 2010. Design team stories. Exploring interdisciplinary use of 3D object models in practice. Autom. Constr. 19 (5), 554–569. Neale, D.C., 1997, Octoberr. Factors influencing spatial awareness and orientation in desktop virtual environments. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Vol. 41 No. 2. SAGE Publications, pp. 1278–1282. Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scabrough, H., Swan, J., 2009. Managing Knowledge Work and Innovation. Palgrave Macmillian. Olson, J.S., Teasley, S., Covi, L., Olsen, G., 2002. The (currently) unique advantages of collocated work. In: Hinds, P.J., Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Distributed Work. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 113–135. O'Toole, P., Were, P., 2008. Observing places: using space and material culture in qualitative research. Qual. Res. 8 (5), 616–634. Packendorff, J., 1995. Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project management research. Scand. J. Manag. 11 (4), 319–333. Panayiotou, A., Kafiris, K., 2010. Viewing the language of space: organizational spaces, power, and resistance in popular films. J. Manag. Inq. (1056492610389816). Panayiotou, A., Kafiris, K., 2011. Viewing the language of space: Organizational spaces, power, and resistance in popular films. J. Manag. Inq. 20 (3), 264–284. Passini, R., 1984. Spatial representations, a wayfinding perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 4, 153–164. Prencipe, A., Tell, F., 2001. Inter-project learning: processes and outcome of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Res. Policy 30 (9), 1373–1394. Reimer, S., Pinch, S., Sunley, P., 2008. Design spaces: agglomeration and creativity in British design agencies. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B 90 (2), 151–172. Sayer, A., 1985. The difference that space makes. Social relations and spatial structures. Macmillan Education, UK, pp. 49–66. Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., 2004. Project-based learning and the role of learning boundaries. Organ. Stud. 25 (9), 1579–1600. Sewell, G., Wilkinson, B., 1992. “Someone to watch over me”: surveillance, discipline and the just-in-time labour process. Sociology 26 (2), 271–289. Simmel, G., 2009. Sociology: Inquiries Into the Construction of Social Forms. Brill. Söderlund, J., Søderlund, 2011. Theoretical foundations for project management: suggestions for a pluralistic understanding. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Taylor, S., Spicer, A., 2007. Time for space: a narrative review of research on organizational spaces. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 9 (4), 325–346. van Marrewijk, A., 2010. The beauty and the beast: the embodied experience of two corporate buildings. In: van Marrewijk, A., Yanow, D. (Eds.), Organizational Spaces: Rematerializing the Workaday World. Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 96–114. Vásquez, C., Cooren, F., 2013. Spacing Practices: The Communicative Configuration of Organizing Through Space‐Times. Commun. Theory 23 (1), 25–47. Von Hippel, E., 1994. “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Manag. Sci. 40 (4), 429–439. Yanow, D., 1995. Built space as story. Policy Stud. J. 23 (3), 407–422. Yanow, D., 1998. Space stories: studying museum buildings as organizational spaces while reflecting on interpretive methods and their narration. J. Manag. Inq. 7 (3), 215–239.

Please cite this article as: P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema, J. Tjell, 2017. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.009