Emerging E-Communication Technologiesand Their Usage in Project-Based Organizations mats engsbo and maqsood sandhu Swedish Schoolof EconomicsandBusinessAdministration,Finland Thisarticle examineshowtheintroduction ofelectronic commu- nication intheArchitectural-Engineering-Construction indus- try isimpacting on twodomains ofmanagement, namely pro- duction management andproject management. In thestudy,tra- ditionalorganizations are associated with production manage- ment, andproject-based organizations are associated with project management. Bylookingattheusage, wewanttopindown which e-communication toolsare more tightlycoupled totheformof management. Thedata forthestudywere collected through two surveys,onetotalpopulationsurveyintheFinnishandSwedish housebuildingindustriesasrepresentatives oftraditional organ- izations,andafocusedsurveyin theproject-based industries. Ourresults showedthatelectronic documentmanagement and schedulingwere more prominentamong project-based organiza- tions,asthesefirms exhibitmore inter-organizational communi- cation. Key words: e-communication, project management, production management Introduction Electronic communication is a system used as means of sending or retrieving messages through computer or Internet connections. To- day this includes a multitude of communication tools, ranging from simple formssuchase-mailstomorecomplex forms,e.g.electronic document management (edm) systems, enterprise resource plan- ning (erp) systems and project planning systems. The introduction of different e-communication tools may alter the firm operations, providing firms with innovate venues for impacting their manage- mentprocesses. Davies and Hobday (2005) use the term ‘project business’ to refer to ‘organizations – which maybe entire firms or units within firms – that deploy projects to achieve major business objectives, including all firms which design and produce complex products and systems (Cops)’. For the purpose of this study, project business is defined broadly to encompass all business functions in which many stake- holders areinvolved inthe process. management 2 (4): 285–301 285 MatsEngsboandMaqsood Sandhu Past research on improving communication has mainly focused on internal organizational communication, and most of this at- tention has been on the availability of communication for intra- organizational communication of traditional business organizations (Amaratunga, Sarshar and Baldry 2002; Greasley 2003). However, the distinctive characteristics (uniqueness, uncertainty and com- plexity)ofprojectbusinesswithitsdistinctivecommunicationneeds, meanthatanyattempttoimprovecommunicationonthebasisoftra- ditionalorganizationsisunlikelytofulfilthespecialrequirementsof project business. In particular, a focus on the company’s internal communication fails to recognize the importance of communication withexternalnetworks,partners,andotherstakeholders,inthecon- duct of project business. Indeed, researchers in the area of project management have largely neglected such inter-organizational com- municationthatcanbesupportedbyadoptionofavailabletechnolo- giesordeveloping newtechnologies. Very little attention has been paid to the integration of inter- organizational and intra-organizational perspectives of electronic communication in project-based organizations, especially in the context of e-communication availability and its actual usages in en- gineering,procurement,andconstruction(epc)projects.Thisrepre- sents a significant gap in the literature: project-based organizations (pbos)mustbeabletoconductefficientbusinessoperationsbyutil- izing newtechnology. Therefore, the driving force for this study is to reveal the gap in research on firms engaged in e-communication covering project- based organization, and to show how traditional organization e- communication differs from these organizations. The effort is to elaborate some thoughts and views on e-communication which in- terrelate the firms’ inter- and intra-organizational communication usage. In line with the integrated communication and available technologies, we discuss its usages in pbo. Therefore our main re- search question is: ‘How are project-based organizations using e- communication in the form of available technologies, and how does thisdifferfromtraditionalorganizations?’ Our research objective is presented in figure 1. The first step in addressing the above research question is to establish the differ- encebetweenpbosand‘traditional’businessesorganizations(tos). The organizations that are involved in project business are always formed around the tasks involved with its stakeholders. Therefore, it is appropriate to establish a framework for the intra- and inter- communication applying the emerging technologies. Establishing 286 management · volume 2 EmergingE-CommunicationTechnologies Traditionalorganizations Project-basedOrganizations Characteristics to Characteristics pbo Inter-organizational andintra-organizational communication Communication needs to Communication needs pbo Available communication technologies Adoptionofict to Adoptionofict pbo Actual use to Actualuse pbo figure1 Overviewoftheresearchobjective such a framework will allow us to gain better understanding of how firms communicate with their internal and external partners. The communicationneedsspecifywhatsetsofavailabletechnologiescan beimplementedbythefirms,thusleadingtotheactualusageamong thetwogroups oforganizations.Inthis wewilllocatewhetherthere areanydifferencesintheactualusageofe-communicationbetween the twodifferentformsoforganizations. The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. The next section reviews the literature and pins down the differences between tradi- tional and project-based organizations. The third section describes communication needs of project-based organizations. It also eluci- dates communication styles between such organizations with inter- and intra-organizational perspectives. The fourth discusses the emerging technologies and how these are adopted. In the fifth we present the methodology and data, along with analysis of the data. Finally,theconclusions andsuggestionsforfuture workareoffered. Project-BasedAndTraditionalOrganizations Themajorcharacteristicsofprojectbusinessare:(i)uniqueness;(ii) complexity; and (iii) discontinuity. A project is unique in the sense number 4 · winter 2007 287 MatsEngsboandMaqsood Sandhu table1 Characteristics ofproject-based organizations andtraditional business organizations Project-based organizations Traditional business organizations Temporaryarrangement Emphasisongoals Dynamic Flexible Non-hierarchicorganization Decentralizeddecision making Adhocratic Continuousoperations Emphasison workingprocesses Stable Inflexible Hierarchicorganization Centralized decision making Bureaucratic that everyproject differs fromanother insize,type, customers,sup- pliers,volume,price,andsoon. Itis complexin termsofthe techni- cal, financial, political, and social factors involved. Finally, it is dis- continuous in terms of the high degree of discontinuity in economic relationsbetweensuppliersandthecustomers. The nature of project business means that organizations involved in project management must be specialized in communication if they are to offer a full range of services to their customers, cope withdemandfluctuations,andshortenresponsetimes.Pastresearch (Sandhu2005)hasplacedemphasisontheimportanceofcommuni- cationandimprovingcommunicationprocessesfocusingoninternal organizational capabilities, and most of this attention has been fo- cused on the communication and processdevelopment. Most recent contributions on project approach point out that project approach is becoming more popular day-by-day in the modern economy. It hasemergedasaspecializedareaofmanagementtomeettheneeds of organization in order to accomplish specific objectives and goals. Today project management approach is characterized by newly de- velopedmethodsandtechniquesthatarecontinuallyadvancingand evolvingasaresultofongoingresearchandpractice. In spite of the increasing practice of project approach, the project managersarestill perplexed becauseoftwo reasons.Firstofall, the goalsoftheprojectarelikelytochangeandbecomemoredemanding under the changing external circumstances which are beyond com- pany control. Secondly, the traditional techniques of handling the project are not always a proper fit in more recent times. The reason for this lies in the fact that the organizations are also growing along with the external environment. It is clear that project management will be of critical importance in future because of dynamic external conditions. Project organizations and the established methods and tools of project management require further investigation. Inside the rou- 288 management · volume 2 EmergingE-CommunicationTechnologies tineorganization,thereareconstantandwellknowninstitutionslike functional groups, departments, plants and branches where knowl- edge and experiences are acquired, stored, and dispersed. Hence, these institutions can be asked and their knowledge and experi- encescanberetrieved,despitethespecificappearanceofthecollec- tions, e.g. in documentation, records, competent employees, or hid- denwithintheworkingprocess. Projects are distinct as temporary organizations with particular objectives, detailed tasks, and restricted time and budget. When a projectisfinished,normallythereisnoinstitutionorbodyleftwhere existing knowledge can be accessed. Meeting spots, like groups, de- partments, plants, branches in the regular organizations, no longer existaftertheending ofaproject. After the ending, the organization of the project is broken up and nolongerexists.Inadditionitwillbehardtodiscoverwhichemploy- eesworkedonarecentlyfinishedproject,whowereaccountablefor specific tasks, and where these employees are working now within the company. These types of troubles will increase with the number ofprojectsrunninginparallel,organizedsecuringofknowledgeand experiences is even more important in multi-project management. Companiesthatarenotsystematicallysecuringknowledgegainedin projectsforlaterusageruntheriskthatknowledgeandusefulexpe- riencesmayvanishwiththeendofaproject.Themajorityofcompa- nies are investing in innovative project work but investing nothing inevaluatingandlearningfromit.Withinprojectmanagement,effi- ciency and effectiveness of the work of the project’s team members is significant. Companies learn the largest part within projects, but cannot communicate their experiences. At best, project team mem- bers keep the knowledge and experiences as individual knowledge, whichtheymayuseinthefuture. Therefore, this study presents a framework that is elaborated on the basis of the reciprocal interactions of activities within and out- sidetheorganization–thusprovidingacoherentbasisforcontinuous business-process improvement. Therefore, the differences in char- acteristics and communication needs are great but still the similar- ities are even bigger, implying that technologies for supporting pbo andtboareabletobe cross-productive. Intra-andInter-OrganizationalCommunication Adriaanse and Voordijk (2005) state that the contract, the frames of reference of the parties involved and the interests of the parties in- volved (together with a lack of trust) are three major factors influ- number 4 · winter 2007 289 MatsEngsboandMaqsood Sandhu encinginter-organizationalcommunication(i.e.,communicationbe- tween client and contractor) in the construction phase of construc- tionprojects.Herewearguethatinprojectstheinitialphasesareex- tremelyimportant,astheneedforpre-contractualcommunicationis crucialaswellastheneedforearlyriskanalysis,implyingthatmuch communicationtakesplacebeforeanactualcontractisdrawnup.In the early phase of the project, the communication could take many forms,communicationcanbeverbal,written(e.g.textual,drawings) ornon-verbal(e.g.gestures). The project-management literature has focused mainly on intra- organizational communication aspects (Almeida, Song and Grant 2002; Tsai 2001) – how a project is planned, controlled, and de- livered. But, communicating in a project is conceptually different from the traditional stable manufacturing organizations. Manage- mentofaprojectinvolvesmanagementofthatproject’suniqueness, complexities, and uncertainties, and this requires both an intra- organizational perspective and an inter-organizational perspective. Theuniqueness,complexities,anduncertaintiesshouldbemanaged simultaneously. If the focus is on the communication in networks, rather than in the single firm, issues that arise both inside and outside organizations demand the availability of appropriate com- munications tools. In accordance with this view, the study focuses on availability of tools for communication and their actual use in project-basedorganizations. Aprojectbusinessinvolvesintra-organizationalandinter-organi- zational networks that require different types of knowledge and communication. A framework that combines intra-organizational networks with inter-organizational networks is required to commu- nicateefficientlyandeffectivelythroughoutthebusinessoperations. Thiswillallowtheprojectmanagertofocusonhowtocommunicate invarioussituationsinordertomanagetheproject-basedorganiza- tions. Within project management literature Thompson and Richard- son (1996) have argued that organizational systems have become more open, complex, and political. This creates a greater level of uncertaintyfortheorganizationsandcontributestoanunstableand changing project environment. Artto and Wickström (2005) say that the project business must be managed by external factors such as characteristicsoftheproductandthecompetitiveenvironment.This high level of uncertainty challenges traditional approaches to pro- cess formulation and communication. Thus, the way of communica- tionwillhaveanimpactonthesekindsoffailures,asunderstanding 290 management · volume 2 EmergingE-CommunicationTechnologies howtoremedythemwouldpointtonewapplicationsofthecommu- nication technologies. Earlier research on intra-organizations has focused mainly on environments that could impede the development of corporations, ratherthanthosefromwhichbenefitsarederived(BradyandDavies 2004; Collyer 2000). However, most organizations are in an ‘inter- mediate context’, whereby processes can be developed and ben- efits can be mutually derived. The important organizational char- acteristics for successful project development include openness in communication, adequate environmental scanning, management support, and established organizational values. In addition, intra- organizational business processes have an important complemen- taryfunction(alongwithinter-organizationalprocesses)infostering the planning andexecutionof aproject. ElectronicCommunicationTechnologies andTheirAdoption Traditionalformsofcommunicationinorganizationsarecarriedout through face-to-face interaction; paper-based drawings, letters and graphics; through telephone calls. E-communication is doing the same thing, but electronically. Our definition of electronic commu- nication (e-communication) is a system used as a means of sending or retrieving messages through computers or Internet connections. E-communication can take many forms, whether it is synchronous (real-time)orasynchronous;textual/verbalonlyormultimedia. Thecostofcommunicationhasdecreasedcomparedtotraditional means (e.g. distribution of paper copies vs. attaching a file to an e- mail), the speed of communication has increased rapidly (e.g. time for an electronic message to arrive compared to a snail mail deliv- ery), and the technologies involved in bringing e-communications are becoming evermore versatile(e.g.both video-conferencing and textual communication simultaneously). There are still some disad- vantageswithe-communication,e.g.lackinginterpersonalexchange and legal implications (e.g. validity of a signed paper compared to onesentbye-mail). During use,thereisoftensomeformofadaptation ofthetechnol- ogy as the firm or individual learns more about the technology. Of- tenatechnologyisimplementedandtestedinasimplermodeornot fully.Further,itimplementationbarriersexistandcanbeidentified and handled from different perspectives, e.g. the top-down effects on multi-level itimplementation barriers with links to implement- ation coping strategies (Stewart, Mohamed and Marosszeky 2004). number 4 · winter 2007 291 MatsEngsboandMaqsood Sandhu At the industry level – industry nature in the form of competitive- ness, cost sensitivity, resource limitations and fragmentation– there maybebarriersthatinhibititimplementation.Attheorganizational level,thelackofitinvestmentjustificationsandavailableresources mayinhibitimplementation,aswellasproblemswithstrategicfore- sight. At the project level, the nature of the projects themselves (uniqueness, complexity, and discontinuity) provides barriers for it implementation. In a study of the Australian construction industry (Stewart,MohamedandMarosszeky2004),themostsignificantbar- riers at the project-level were tight project time-frames that inhibit trainingandexperimentingwithit,followedbylimitationsinitex- penditures, lack of itleadership and low levels of technological lit- eracy. Theissueofevaluatingitcostswhendevelopinganitinfrastruc- ture that can be economically justified are also a venue that needs more focus and development, especially regarding indirect human costs(e.g.managementtimeonplanningandintegratinganewsys- tem, internal systemsupport) and indirect organizational costs (e.g. productivitylosses,resistancetochange)(LoveandIrani2001).The conceptoftheitlifecycleisprovidingfirmswithfurthercomplexity in the investment situation but also a more realistic picture of what canbe expectedfromtheitinvestment. Communication processes (i.e. exchange of information) can oc- cur either internally or externally to the firm. Intra-organizational e-communication is in its simplest mode mere electronic mails (or fax), while more enhanced e-communications over Intranet or lo- cal networks can be streamed either in different forms: text, audio and/or visual. The interface with external parties provides support fororder-taking,procurement,collaborationorotherprocesses.Ap- plications exist for constructing and managing relationships these relations,intheformsofExtranets,edi,e-commerce,electronicdoc- umentsystems(edm)andsoon. The adoption decisions may also be based on the dimensions of adoption initiative and innovation stimulus, making the adoption decision pro-active, reactive, forced or even arbitrary. Further, the choiceofelectronicbusinesssolutionsisaswelldependentoncrite- rialikerelativenetworkpower,integrationlevelofsolutions,product characteristics and supply chain relationships (Ratnasingam 2000). The spread of e-communication varies across industries, networks and even organizations. The rate, extent and frequency of adoption of e-communication all quantify technology adoption according to the economic-rationalistic approach (Fichman 2004). The critique 292 management · volume 2 EmergingE-CommunicationTechnologies against the so-called dominant paradigm of ictinnovation coupled witheconomicandrationalisticbehaviouristhatthefocusonquan- tity of adoption and the inherent beneficial perceptions of innova- tion may not paint a totally realistic picture. Adoption of transient technologies,prior adopters’affluenceadoption and‘moreis notal- ways better’ are factors that contradict the quantity approach for it adoption. When the firmdecides whetherto adopt e-communication or not, the complexity in the decision should be apparent. The decision is based not only on internal perceptions but also on the business mi- lieu that the firms reside in. The determinants of e-communication adoptioncanbedividedintoseveraldifferenttypologies:incremen- tal vs. revolutionary, internal vs. external stimuli, key drivers (tech- nological, economic,social,organizationaldriversandbarriers). In communicating on a project, the mode and tool for commu- nication may be set from the onset. For instances, in big construc- tion projects, the use or non-use of electronic document manage- mentsystemscanbeafflictedbytheheadcontractor,andifusedthe systems may vary according to what collaborators the organizations communicatewith. Methodology background The objective of the present study was to describe the electronic communicationintheArchitectural-Engineering-Construction(aec) industryandtocomparepboswithtosregardingtheiruseofkeyit tools incommunication. The data for the study were collected through two surveys, one a total population survey in the Finnish and Swedish small house building industries as representatives of traditional organizations (tos), and the other a focused survey in the project-based indus- tries. In the second survey on pbos no house building companies were involved. The respondents were project-management person- nel at both the strategic level and the operational level. Both the surveyswithsimilarquestionsarecombinedtoinvestigatetheplau- sibilityofourassumptions.Intotal,114questionnairesweresentout and46answerstooursurveyswerereceived. The data we are using is a subset of questions from two sur- veys conducted in a toand a pboenvironment, respectively. In this study we compare the answers from ten questions specifically fo- cussedone-communicationfrombothsurveys.Thequestionsasked number 4 · winter 2007 293 MatsEngsboandMaqsood Sandhu were regarding e-communication tools that can be found in the or- ganizations. These tools were design and planning with 3d mod- elling,internalcommunicationnetworksintheformofIntranetsand scheduling software, electronic document management, electronic procurementandcommunication platforms. data collection The tosurvey was conducted among house building companies as atotalpopulationsurveyforFinland(conductedOctober-November, 2006) and Sweden (conducted March–April, 2007), where the firms wereselectedaccordingtothefollowing criteria:the firmsbelong to the sni-classification 20301that denotes producers of prefabricated wooden houses, and from these are selected the firms having more than nine employees. In the study, micro firms with less than ten employees were excluded. We exclude this category of firms in our studyduetothesize,asthisputsrestrictionsonthefirms’capability inthefieldofinformationtechnologyinvestment.Theserestrictions are due to scarceness of financial and technical resources, and also because internal communication technologies are less necessary as thelikelinessofface-to-facecommunication accentuates. Thefirmsinthestudyweremainlysmes. According to the Com- missionRecommendation2003/361/econsmall-andmedium-sized enterprises (smes), small firms have between ten and 49 employ- ees, while medium-sized firms are larger but have a maximum of 249employees.Thereisalsoaconditionabouttheturnoverandbal- ance sheet in accordance with each category. We sent the survey to 55 house building companies in Finland and 41 companies in Swe- den. Response rate from Finland was 38% (21 answers) and 39% (16 answers)fromSwedenintotal37responses. The second survey, the pbosurvey, was conducted in September– October 2006, among smesaswellasmulti-nationalcompanies (mncs)thatarelocatedinFinland.Theoperationsofthesmeswere mostly local, while the mncs have their offices around the world. The respondents represented companies involved in projects in the construction industry (excluding house building companies), elec- tronics industry, and power-plant industry. The selection criterion forthepbostudywaspbosthatbelongtoaprojectmanagementclub due to the fact that these companies allowed the researchers better accesstotherequiredinformation.Wedistributedthequestionnaire survey to 18ceos,DirectorsandGeneralManagersofpbos. Wereceivedninereplies,andonereturnedthequestionnairesay- ing that he had retired from the project-based organization. Three 294 management · volume 2 EmergingE-CommunicationTechnologies table2 Responses fromthehousebuildingandproject-based study Sizeoffirm tostudy tostudy pbostudy Total Finland Sweden Finland/mnc Small,10–49 9 9 0 18 Medium,50–249 10 6 5 21 Large,>250/mnc 2147 Total 21 16 9 46 out of nine responding pbosweremncshavingemployees between 750and14,000insomeeightycountries,includingFinlandandSwe- den. From one of the mncs we received two responses from its two differentdivisions,thusmakingthenumberofresponsesfrommncs amounting to four. The remaining five companies weresmes, being largelyoperationalinFinlandandhavingsomelinkswithmncsasa supplier. The basis for judging the size of the respondents was according to the size of the project group. As a firm can be involved in several projects simultaneously, we asked questions about specific projects. Most project teams consisted of fewer than 20 personnel, although onemanagerstatedthathisteamhas21–50persons.Eachrespond- ent has been a manager over at least 20 projects to the value of 10 million to 300 millions euro. The technical and engineering func- tions of the projects involved process systems, civil and structural work, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemical en- gineering,technicalinstrumentation,andsoftwareengineering.The responseratetothequestionnairefromtheserespondentswas50%. A reminder was sent to those who had not replied. Details of the respondentsfromeachcategoryarelistedintable2. In the pbo survey, the respondents were general managers of projects and project managers. In the to survey the respondents were either the ceoof the organization or the itmanager. The dif- ference between the groups of respondents is due to the focus on projects in the first group and the fact that the ‘traditional’ organi- zations do not hold project managers. The customer focus between the two survey groups differs, as the customers of the toare mostly privatepersonsbuildingasmallhouseoradeveloperproducingrow houses. The customer group of the pbos are mostly large organiza- tions withhighvalueoftheprojects. analysis and findings The tostudy provided some interesting details. In their communi- cationtothecustomers,thehousebuildingfirmsallhadhomepages, number 4 · winter 2007 295 MatsEngsboandMaqsood Sandhu 35% of the firms used 3dvisualization and nine firms (24%) were in the process of implementing this kind of technology. It was more commonamongsttheFinnishfirmsthantheSwedishtohave3dvis- ualization for their customers. 3dvisualization is used to display a model of how the finished product will look and as a basis for plan- ningorselectingdifferentoptions,suchascolours,porchesetcetera. Further, 37% of the firms used some form of customer relationship management(crm)softwareordatabasestokeeptrackofcustomers during the process of delivering the finished house to the customer; 16% of the firms recognized a need for this kind of software, while 26%wereintheprocessofimplementingsuchsoftwareintheirbusi- ness processes. This was also relevant to the size of the firm, the bigger the firm, the more likely the firm is to have implemented 3d visualizationandcrmsystems. Regardinginternalcommunication,theuseofIntranetswaspreva- lent. Almost 60% of the firms had implemented Intranet solutions, but – interestingly – four Swedish firms had opted for not adopting Intranets at all. These firms were, furthermore, not the smallest of the bunch, but three out of the four firms were less than average among the respondents. The extension of Intranet with partner ac- cessintowhatcanbelabelledasExtranetswasmuchlesscommonly used,only24%allowedpartnersaccessthroughExtranets.Thismay beaquite obvious observation, butinordertoallow partnersaccess through an Extranet, there should be an Intranet implemented as a prerequisite forextranetcommunication. Electronicdocumentmanagement(edm)systemsorprojectbanks were used by 19% of the firms, which was unexpectedly high. Then again, this might point to what the respondent considers to be an edmsystem or a project bank. A third of the respondents did not know what this term is. Once again, size mattered as six of those seven firms that had implemented edmwere larger than the aver- agefirmwhenconsideringturnover. Time-schedulingsystemswere used by close to 40% of the firms; once again there was a close cor- relation between firms which have implemented edmsystems and time-scheduling software. On the procurementside, halfof the firmsadmitted to using elec- tronic procurement and of these 60% had integrated their procure- menttosomeextentwiththeirsuppliers.Whenaskingadirectques- tion regarding the connection method for procurement, the use of traditional fax or telephone still constituted on average 48% of the connection method to the suppliers, while e-mail made up 38% on average.Proprietarysystemswereusedbyelevenfirmsintheirpro- 296 management · volume 2 EmergingE-CommunicationTechnologies curement process but only made up about 3% on average. edicom- munication was used by only three firms, but had high percentages fortwoofthesethreefirms:30%and20%oftotalprocurementscon- ductedonedisystems.Thisisatypicaltrend,asonceafirmchooses this method,itwilluseitasextensivelyaspossible. The pboquestionnaire survey consisted of pbosusingict-tools and their communication to customers and sub-suppliers including other stakeholders. The pboquestionnaire was divided into three parts A, B, and C, in addition to background information on the sur- veyparticipant.PartAgatheredinformationaboutproject-basedor- ganization, which types of project, the sizes of the project team and the technical engineering function involved. The second part B was focussing on other issues which are not part of this study. Part C is the focus of this study, where we asked questions regarding e- communication technology and icttools. This part consists of sim- ilar questions as for the 10 main questions of the tosurvey, so this part is where we make comparisons and draw conclusions for our study. All the firms in the study had homepages, and mncsusedvery high levels of e-communications in inter-organizational and intra- organizationalcontexts.Forexample,tointegrateandcoordinatere- sources across projects they have been using project management tools like time-planning, cost-planning and control, quality man- agement, riskmanagement,deviation managementsystems,system designs, and customer relationships management (crm). As 3d is considered important to design in the projects, almost every organ- ization was using 2d and 3d and some platform to communicate with their customers. Two out of the nine responding firms did not use 3d, and both were among the smallest of the smesresponding. About 90% of pboused crm, as their customers requested to reg- ister complaints etcetera about the products. Customers also keep such databases to analyse the performance of their suppliers. The useofintranetswascommon;almostallmncsandsmeswereusing intranetsolutions.Allmncsandsmesusedelectronicprocurements andhadintegratedtheirsystemwiththeirsuppliers. Themainfindingsfromthequestionnairesurveyaresummarized in table 3. An important finding from the survey was the difference in attitude among employees of tosandpbos. According to the re- spondents from tos their employees were more committed to the company strategy than to projects, whereas the respondents from pbos reported that their employees were more committed to the projects than to the company. It was found that all respondents be- number 4 · winter 2007 297 MatsEngsboandMaqsood Sandhu table3 Actualusageoficttools inthetwoformsof organizations Technology to pbo Intra-organizational Intranets 60%using,13%rejected 90% Design andplanning 2dcad70%, 3dcad60% 2dcad100%, 3dcad80% Scheduling 40%,simpleor home-madesoftware 100% Inter-organizational Extranets 24% 50% E-Procurement 43%,advanceduselow 45%,increaseinfuture Collaborative platforms Nodata 50% Documentmanagement 19%,mostlyinternal 100% Customer relationship management 37% 90% lieved in written contracts as being essential to project business. Of the usage of 3ddesign software, the Finnish house building firms thatused3dsoftwareusedmostlyVertexbd(tenoutof16).Theuse ofe-procurementisconfusing,as43%acknowledgedtheyuseditbut mostly in the form of non-true e-procurement such as e-mail doc- uments or attachments. The most common form of e-procurement was proprietary software provided by the supplier that accounted for4%oftheprocurementofmaterials. Conclusion The main point of this paper is that different organizational forms requireddifferentapproachesforapplyingcommunicationtools.We have elaborated on the main differences between project-based or- ganizations and traditional organizations, e.g. varying time-frame, complexityofcollaboration,andknowledgereapplicability.pbosare morecomplexthantraditionalorganizationsinrespecttonumberof partners and activities, hence they require more emphasis on how to support and simplify the communication. Because project teams, although small, belong to bigger organizations, they have access to moretoolsandotherresourcesthanatraditionalorganizationofthe same size as the project team, which will skew the it complexity issues to favour the project teams. The over-belief in quantifiable measures of itadoption has to be taken into account. In order to successfully apply e-communication tools, the organization has to look to the available tools and find the one that fills its communica- tion need. 298 management · volume 2 EmergingE-CommunicationTechnologies As the project-based organizations conduct several projects with multiple partners, the inter-organizational communication require- ments are higher than for traditional organizations where inter- organizationalcommunicationiscarriedoutvertically.Insmes, em- ployees haveeasyaccessto communicatewith thehead of the com- pany; however, in the mncs, there is some ‘distance’ between the chiefexecutive officer(ceo)andprojectmanagers. pbomaycommunicatewithadvancedcommunicationsystemsdue to the skills and knowledge involved in different projects. The tech- nologies available to both to and pbo might be the same but the knowledge and familiarity with new technologies might differ, as pbos are often more change-oriented and exposed to the technolo- gies in their inter-organizational relationships. Traditional organi- zations do not need to collaborate with many firms in different con- stellations, therefore the need to communicate does not need to be as dynamic and learning-intense as the pbos that form many rela- tionships and participate in project collaboration efforts where the technology solution involved may change as the group of collabora- torschangesoranewprojectisformed.Thisismoreapparentatthe inter-organizationallevel. The characteristics of the firms, whether they are toor pbo,are related to the form of organization. The communication needs of tosandpbos are connected to the inter-organizational and intra- organizationalrelationshipsexhibited,wheremoredynamicanddif- ferent relationships externally might provide firms with differing communication needs.The adoption ofictisrestrictedtothe avail- abletechnologies,communication needsandorganizationalcharac- teristics of the organizations, giving differing actual use of ictbe- tweenpbosandtos. The contribution of this paper is towards the understanding of thedifferencesinnatureandcommunications ofthe traditionaland project-based organizations. We emphasise the fact that project- based organizations make more interfirm collaboration efforts, thus requiringmoreextensivecommunicationsystemsforinter-organiza- tional linkages.Time isa crucialfactorinpbos,due to heavypenal- ties on delays. On the other hand, the ever-changing collaborations inpboalsoprohibitthefullefficiencyofusingthesamesystemeach time, as the project team – if consisting of several organizations – is ofadifferentaspect. Further research is needed to measure the wider aspects of dif- ferences in e-communication adoption, since our sample ofpbosas well as tos is quite small and we cannot claim statistical accuracy. number 4 · winter 2007 299 MatsEngsboandMaqsood Sandhu The barrier aspect is a further issue that could be incorporated in future research as to whetherpbosandtos exhibit different forms of barriers and the ability to overcome these. We believe the study would also benefit significantly from doing more extensive quali- tative investigations on the reasons for adopting different forms of e-communication. References Adriaanse, A., and H. Voordijk. 2005. Interorganizational communica- tion and ictin construction projects: A review using metatriangu- lation. ConstructionInnovation5(3):159–177. Almeida, P., J. Song, and R. M. Grant. 2002. Are firms superior to al- liances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building. OrganizationScience13 (2):147–161. Amaratunga, D., M. Sarshar, and D. Baldry. 2002. Process improve- ment in facilities management: The spiceapproach. Business Pro- cess ManagementJournal8(4):318–337. Artto, K., and K. Wickström. 2005. What is project business? Interna- tional Journal of Project Management 23(5):343–353. Brady, T., and A. Davies. 2004. Building project capabilities: From ex- ploratory toexploitativelearning.OrganizationStudies25(9):1601– 1621. Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises 2003/361/ec. Official Journalof theEuropean UnionL124/36, 20May2003. Collyer,M.2000. Communication:Theroutetosuccessfulchangeman- agement; Lessons from the Cuiness Integrated Business Program- me. Supply ChainManagement 5 (5):222–225. Davies, A., and M. Hobday. 2005. The business of projects: Managing innovation in complex product and systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fichman,R.G.2004.Goingbeyondthedominantparadigmforinforma- tion technology innovationresearch: Emerging concepts and meth- ods.JournaloftheAssociationforInformationSystems5(8):314–355. Greasley,A.2003.Usingbusiness-processsimulationwithinabusiness- process reengineering approach. Business Process Management Journal9 (4):408–421. Love, P. E. D., and Z. Irani. 2001. Evaluation ofitcosts in construction. AutomationinConstruction10(6):649–658. Ratnasingam, P. 2000. The influence of power on trading partner trust in electronic commerce. InternetResearch10(1):56–62. Sandhu, M. 2005. Managing project business development: An inter- organizational andintra-organizational perspective. phd diss.,Swe- dishSchoolofEconomicsandBusinessAdministration. 300 management · volume 2 EmergingE-CommunicationTechnologies Stewart, R.A., S.Mohamed, and M.Marosszeky. 2004. An empirical in- vestigationintothelinkbetweeninformationtechnologyimplemen- tation barriers and coping strategies in the Australian construction industry. ConstructionInnovation4(3):155–171. Thompson, J., and B. Richardson. 1996. Strategic and competitive suc- cess:Towardsamodelofthecomprehensivelycompetentorganiza- tion.Management Decision34 (2):5–19. Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Ef- fects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal 44 (5):996–1005. number 4 · winter 2007 301