Measuring Constructs of Relational Contracting in Construction Projects: The Owner’s Perspective Christofer M. Harper, A.M.ASCE 1 ; Keith R. Molenaar, M.ASCE 2 ; and Joseph P. Cannon 3 Abstract: Traditional project design and construction delivery is segmental. Researchers and practitioners often cite the separation, or “silo effect, ” as a reason for poor project outcomes. In response, new forms of integrated contracts have emerged, fostering more collaborative efforts and a focus on successful project outcomes, instead of individual organizational outcomes. Relational contract theory provides a basis for understanding these new integrated forms of agreement through a set of relational contracting norms. This study operationalizes the relational contracting norms designed to measure project integration. The norms and their dimensions were developed through a rigorous construct mapping methodology and then tested, analyzed, and validated with a survey of owners and owners’ representatives from 314 completed projects using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The study validates the measures and demonstrates the potential that the measures have to illuminate the nature of relational contracting in construction project teams. The validated scales can be used in future research to better understand when and how contracts influence integration and project performance. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862 .0001169. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers. Author keywords: Contracting; Project delivery; Project teams; Partnering. Introduction The overall construction process, from programming to design and through to construction, involves many key participants who need to collaborate continuously in order to complete the project on time, on budget, and to the level of quality and functionality that the owner requires. However, construction projects have a ten- dency for key participants to work separately and focus on indi- vidual goals, rather than project goals. This tendency is a result of standard industry contracts and a legacy of litigation within the industry. This is because the basis of standard construction contracts is transactional contract law developed by Samuel Williston (1920). The structure of standard construction contracts encourages each party to operate within its own goals and proce- dures rather than focus on the project as a whole (Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber 2011). This focus on individual goals, rather than project goals, shows the inefficiencies of the contract and leads to finger pointing and disputes when problems arise (Matthews and Howell 2005). In an effort to change the separation tendency, many owners are now looking for strategic ways to improve the collaboration efforts of project teams by engaging in integration techniques and using relational contracts. Many studies and reports boast the benefits associated with project integration and relational con- tracts. The American Institute of Architects, California Council, developed multiple reports, guides, and case study investigations of project integration (e.g., AIACC 2007, 2010). Engineering News Record (ENR) has published several articles since 2007 that demonstrate the benefits of integrated projects and relational contracting (e.g., Post 2011a, b; Bergeron 2008). The Lean Construction Institute (LCI) adopted project integration as an ideal part of lean construction (e.g., Forbes and Ahmed 2011; Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber 2011; Matthews and Howell 2005). The ASCE has published a variety of research articles re- lated to project integration and relational contracting (e.g., Ning and Ling 2013; El Asmar et al. 2013; Kumaraswamy et al. 2005). Yet, none of these studies focused on determining the level of integration present in construction project teams. More specifi- cally, a study by Cheung et al. (2006) created a relational index that was composed of eight factors related to construction. The findings of the study showed that traditional design–bid–build (D–B–B) contracts were more relational than subcontracts and direct labor contracts. However, this study did not use a formal theory to de- velop the relational index, and the focus of the study was the Hong Kong construction industry and, more specifically, on contracts and not necessarily the project team. In recent years, project team integration research has focused on specific aspects of improving the team environment, such as the use of partnering and integration through the use of integrated project delivery (Ning and Ling 2013; El Asmar et al. 2013; Kumaraswamy et al. 2005) and alliancing (Ibrahim et al. 2014, 2015; Laan et al. 2011). Baiden et al. (2006), in particular, demonstrated that team integration improves the probability of successful project outcomes. They also noted the need for a systematic approach for measuring integration of a team through- out design and construction of a project. Without the knowledge of how to measure integration, it is difficult to improve it. Therefore, this study seeks to determine and validate a means of measuring project team integration as a prerequisite to improvement. 1 Assistant Professor, Bert S. Turner Dept. of Construction Management, Louisiana State Univ., 3128 Patrick F. Taylor Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (corresponding author). E-mail: charper@lsu.edu 2 Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineer- ing, Univ. of Colorado Boulder, UCB 428, Boulder, CO 80309. E-mail: keith.molenaar@colorado.edu 3 Professor, Dept. of Marketing, College of Business, Colorado State Univ., 1201 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523. E-mail: joe .cannon@business.colostate.edu Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 3, 2015; approved on February 23, 2016; published online on April 26, 2016. Discussion period open until September 26, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En- gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364. © ASCE 04016053-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2016, 142(10): 04016053 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tarumanagara University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.