T HE PRODUCTION OF THE TWO PROJECTS

All things considered, in the Vollebekk project, the information sharing in the earlier phases facilitated a limited need for communication in the execution phase.

Still, contractor 1 deliberately through maintained dialogue with the client and the same information level throughout the execution phase. Even though it was limited need for discussion in the execution phase, the maintained dialogue included how to solve things and what it implied in detail, and where they were in the process.

However, the client is not supposed to make decisions at this time and must therefore become confident about what will be delivered. The trust facilitated by BVA has been perceived as important in the projects and been highlighted by both the client and the contractor to be an important element in all phases, including the execution phase. The contractors have received the trust to provide the contractor with a better product and of higher quality. Having said that, contractor 1 has so far perceived the execution phase to be carried out smoothly and there have been few issues to discuss with the client during the project execution.

“We experience that we gained as much trust from the client as they via the clients representatives had the opportunity to give” - Manger, Control As

“We perceived a high degree of trust both ways in the two projects” - Consultant, Client

“It was the first phases in the project which laid the foundation for a successful execution phase” - Project Manager, Contractor 1

Contractor 1 further states that most discussions have been between them and their consultants and sub-suppliers, which have been handled without involving the client. After the solution had become final, there have only been a few cases where they used the project scope. When contractor 1 experienced deviations from the agreement in the pre-project, they used the provisions in the project scope and were then able to solve the potential disagreement without consulting the client. The project manager from the client stated that the methodology was used to receive a better product and improved collaboration. However, in the end, it is the content of the contract and the main contractor which are decisive. Therefore, the research

indicates that spending more time on discussing risks, roles, expectations, and responsibility in the earlier phases have allowed there to be fewer discussions in the execution phase.

All things considered, in the Vollebekk project, there have been few disagreements and the parties have overall agreed during the execution of the project.

“The cooperation has been in a certain way closer than earlier. Throughout the project, they have most of the time followed the same direction as the client, with just a few deviations. Overall, there have not been any major discussions and there has been a very good climate between the parties to find good solutions at all times in this project” - Manager, Contractor 2

Interestingly, Expert 2 believe that BVA is not based on collaboration, as one of the elements within the method is to find an expert and the expert is supposed to provide the client with the best outcome. However, the collaboration in the execution phase has been valuable in the projects that expert 2 has conducted, as the collaboration has been seen as working together to find great solutions, which they do by co-operating through regular meetings. However, there can arise some disagreements in finding the solution.

As a recommendation, the project manager from the client states that there should be more clear milestones, and a few meetings to evaluate the different phases, and they could have benefitted from having more distinct phase transitions during the project. Additionally, using a non-BVA contract, the client can demand that the contractor fix a specific problem, compared to BVA, where the client must ask if the contractor has a solution to solve the problem. The research points out that the client could in some cases have benefited from telling the contractor what to do, instead of asking how they will solve it. This is illustrated by one of the client's project manager, who states that they could have put even more pressure on the contractor, although this is not in accordance with the BVA methodology. The way the client communicates with the contractor differs from project to project, in some cases it may be appropriate to ask questions and elaborate, as in the BVA methodology, while in other cases it is more preferred to be strict and

straightforward, as in the traditional model. Independently of the procurement method, as long as we have the specifications as a basis, the contractor has less freedom to go outside the boundaries of the project.

As a final conclusion, the findings of the research point out that the implementation of a project is first and foremost to understand the specific project, the goal of the project, the expectations of the involved parties as well as the role and the standpoint of each party in the project. These aspects are dependent on good coordination and cooperation in the project. It seems that the common understanding among the interviewees is therefore that the BVA method enables these two facets of collaboration, and the time used in the earlier phases are essential for the execution phase. As a final note, with the BVA method, the supplier becomes more aware of performing and delivering as it creates an environment for innovation and development. This creates a performance culture and not a price culture and affects the development of the industry in a positive way (Anskaffelseskonferansen, 2018).

Pre-qualification Selection Clarification Execution

Coordination

Information sharing X X X X

Defining Roles and

Responsibilities X X

Identify Risk* X X

Cooperation

Understanding Goals,

Roles, and Responsibilities X X X

Trust X X X

*identify risk includes WRR and Risk management plan

Table 7: Overview of coordination and cooperation from the analysis