Introduction Conflicts are fascinating. Two urban development projects on which I was involved as a manager both entailed a close working partnership between a local authority and a project developer. Conflicts arose on a regular basis. Following a conflict, a period of mistrust and non-communication would ensue – a form of ceasefire that did nothing to promote the quality of the project's results. Consequently, I asked myself whether this occurred more frequently as part of this type of project and what could be done to prevent this from occurring, thus prompting the start of my research. Problem Formulation Various problem areas can arise during urban development-related Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) that directly affect the partnership. Literature searches revealed that the specific characteristics of such a PPP are more prone to result in socio-emotional conflicts and that under certain circumstances can even escalate to become dysfunctional conflicts. These are conflicts in which mutual goals are no longer being achieved, unwanted delays occur, working relationships deteriorate, and winning or losing becomes the key issue, despite the fact that neither party wants any of these outcomes. Dysfunctional conflicts can be detrimental to the project. Research Question The question at the centre of this study can be formulated as follows. What interventions can be taken in practice at an operational level to prevent dysfunctional conflicts from arising as part of urban development-related PPPs? Research Boundaries This research was limited to urban development-related PPPs in which both parties shared the investment risk and a non-hierarchical relationship existed between both parties in the phase prior to signing the implementation contract. Research Structure The research was split into five components in order to find an answer to the central research question: - first case study investigation into research subject - literature search for interventions - experiment to test hypotheses about interventions described in literature by means of simulation - expert research into questions arising from closer analysis of simulation findings - second case study investigation into practical interventions including those measures proposed in hypotheses First Case Studies Two cases were investigated. One case involved a dysfunctional conflict between a local authority and a project developer. In contrast, the second case involved no such conflict. By virtue of the exploratory nature of this part of the research, open interviews were held with key figures for data collection purposes. Interview transcripts were analysed in three stages using ATLAS.ti software: - Stage 1: Data Coding - Stage 2: Comparison & Recoding - Stage 3: Linking Analysis revealed that in the two cases investigated the term feasibility and various other terms relating to relationship seemed to play a role in specifying the causes of and the solutions to dysfunctional conflicts. These terms formed clues for finding interventions in literature searches. Literature Research Research was conducted in literature relating to project management, process management and urban development, as well as negotiation and conflict management. The literature was evaluated using three criteria: - Does it explain how dysfunctional conflicts arise? - Does it provide any perspective on preventing such conflicts at an operational level? - Is it relevant to urban development PPPs? Starting with the last question, project and urban development literature is by definition applicable to urban development PPPs. In relation to the second criterion, the literature revealed that it was useful to describe PPP interactions from an economic and sociological perspective and that it provided a promising basis with respect to concepts of framing and reframing. It also provided strategies for resolving existing conflicts or preventing future conflicts by identifying and discussing potential intrinsic areas of conflict in advance. It did not however offer any perspective on how to act at the negotiating table. Literature failed to provide any answer to the first question, which is why further research was conducted in literature relating to negotiation and conflict management. An explanation as to how dysfunctional conflicts arise was found in negotiation and conflict management literature Describing how we represent the world and ourselves within a Belief System (De Moor, 1991, p. 29), which in turn acts as a cognitive filter. This literature develops several perspectives on how to approach matters in the form of negotiating styles, general rules of thumb and strategies. However, it fails to address these issues sufficiently at an operational level and did not confirm whether they were applicable to urban development PPPs. It may be concluded from literature searches that although project management, process management and urban development literature is relevant to urban development PPPs, it fails to provide any operational perspective as how to act at the negotiating table. Negotiation and conflict management literature also failed to provide such a perspective. For this reason, it was decided to develop a perspective that took into account relevant findings from literature searches. Based primarily on Bult Spiering (2003) and Schulz von Thun (2003), and supported by findings from the first case study, it may be postulated that a perspective in which interventions are taken is made up of two complementary dimensions – feasibility and relationship. Based on other literature, including Schön et al (1994), Prein (1996), Van Eeten (1999), Conklin (2006) and Evers & Susskind (2009), it may be postulated that reframing forms the basis for interventions intended to prevent dysfunctional conflicts from arising. Reframing is thereby defined as an adjustment of the way in which problem and solution are perceived. Support for the following successful interventions based on reframing was principally found in literature by Rubin, Pruitt & Kim (1994), Tjosvold (1998), Prein (2004) and De Dreu (2005): Conflict intervention: - confronting differences in perception about feasibility - determining assumptions underlying differences in perception - exploring options for mutual problem resolution Climate intervention: - establishing a cooperative climate Hypothesis Hence, the perspective was formulated as a hypothesis relating to potentially promising interventions. Dysfunctional conflicts can be prevented by confronting, identifying and exploring the differences in perceptions of feasibility. This contributes towards establishing a more cooperative working climate, as they defuse the conflict. Two research strategies were adopted in order to examine the hypothesis. One strategy involved an experiment conducted in a simulated environment. As the experiment had little external validity, as second strategy was also employed --, the other a multi-case practical investigation. The research question for examining the hypothesis by means of experiment was: are conflict levels reduced as a result of interventions confronting, identifying and exploring differences in perception about feasibility. The research question for examining the hypothesis by means of practical investigation was two-fold: - What happens in practice to prevent dysfunctional conflicts from arising? - Do the interventions confronting, identifying and exploring differences in perceptions of feasibility play a role in this process? Experiment The experiment was set up as a pure experiment taking measurements before and after, and carried out in three rounds – two with naive participants and one with professional participants. In the last round, nine runs were held with eighteen professional participants – ten in the experimental group and eight in the control group. Based on frequency analysis of the results, runs were differentiated in terms of their cooperative climate or competitive climate. Only one run involved a cooperative climate thus generating too little data to proceed with its analysis. Runs involving a competitive climate revealed a reduction in the conflict level of 6.13 within the experimental group (based on the t test of the average differential score per group of participants) and an increase in the control group of 2.17 – a net reduction of 3.96 for a theoretical maximum difference of 70 (over 5%). This reduction was significant – p < 0.001 for df = 5. The conclusion to be drawn was that the hypothesis was confirmed in the experiment, at least insofar as a competitive climate was involved and insofar as the simulation involved two professionals. Additional Expert Research During the simulations involving professionals, it was sometimes observed that if they had been introduced prior to the simulation, then the simulation initially progressed in a cooperative climate, whereas if this were not the case, then the simulation progressed in a competitive climate. This observation led to the hypothesis that the cooperative climate of urban development PPPs can be positively influenced by first getting to know one another's backgrounds before making any demands. The hypothesis was tested using the following research questions: - To what extent does this hypothesis manifest itself in practice? - What are the essential elements for maintaining long-term relation-ships? Expert research was chosen as the method by which to find an answer to both these questions. Eighteen experts were interviewed – nine project developers and nine key local authority officials. Interviews revealed that the hypothesis could neither be confirmed nor disproved, but most responses indicated that the climate of cooperation could be positively influenced by the following: - getting to know one another's motives for the project - getting to know one another professionally Interviews also revealed that most participants thought that trust was the most important element for maintaining long-term relationships. These results reflected literature search findings. This led to the following conclusions: - Regardless of the character of the partnership, this could be positively influenced by getting to know (K) one another professionally and one another's motivations (M) for the project. By doing so, they contributed towards preventing dysfunctional conflicts. - Literature confirms that relationships can be maintained in the long term by working on trust, but because trust is based on preceding deeds additional research into these deeds is required in order to be able to crystallize these in the form of interventions relevant to urban development PPPs Second Case Study The hypothesis from the literature research was tested further in the second case study. As stated above in the 'Literature Research' section, the hypothesis led to the following two-fold research question for the case study: - What happens in practice to prevent dysfunctional conflicts from arising? - Do interventions confronting, identifying and exploring differences in perception about feasibility play a role in this process? The cases were selected as follows. Based on their CVs, it was anticipated that the eighteen professionals participating in the expert research would have sufficient knowledge of PPPs throughout the country to ask them – and two additional experts – about any cases that they knew to involve: - a PPP - a conflict about feasibility - a near-miss dysfunctional conflict Several cases were sought in order to be able to determine whether results repeated themselves under similar conditions and to be able to compare results under given conditions with those under contrasting conditions. These cases included several in which a cooperative climate existed during the conflict (Subgroup 1) and several in which a competitive climate existed (Subgroup 2) – Yin (2003, p. 47, p. 51). According to Yin, the minimum number of cases required is two, but a target of five is optimal per subgroup in order to obtain a higher degree of certainty. Questioning the twenty experts helped identify twelve cases. Further questioning of other experts referred by the participants revealed no additional cases. Two cases were rejected following an initial interview, as they did not meet the required profile. Ten cases remained for which it was then necessary to determine whether a competitive or cooperative climate existed during the conflict. The cases were investigated based on interviews with the project developers and the key local authority officials involved. Interviews consisted of both open and closed questioning. The first step involved analysing the answers to open questions for each case as to whether intervention had played any role. This was performed as follows: - by identifying the essence underlying the answers to open questions - by summarizing this essence - by determining what form of intervention had been used based on this summary The answers to the closed questions were then analysed. In order to be able to compare case study results, answers for each case were qualified in terms of Yes, No, +, +/ and . Finally, in the cross-case analysis, the interventions identified and the closed-question answers were consolidated and correlated with the participants' qualification of the working climate. The second case study investigation revealed that the following feasibility-related interventions helped prevent dysfunctional conflicts in a cooperative climate: - risk response - plan modification - return and cash flow planning - best alternative without agreement (BAWA) - alternatives - cost reallocation - confronting, identifying and exploring differences in perception (CIE) The following relationship-related interventions helped prevent dysfunctional conflicts in a cooperative climate: - personal contact/preliminary discussion - collaboration - partner elimination - threats - senior management intervention - submission - time-out - third-party mediation - larger mandate - informal relationship management It was found that the following feasibility-related interventions could also help prevent dysfunctional conflicts in a competitive climate: - confronting differences in perception The following relationship-related interventions helped prevent dysfunctional conflicts in a competitive climate: - personal discussion - threats - submission - senior management intervention - partner elimination These interventions provide an answer to the first question in this part of the research, i.e. what happens in practice to prevent dysfunctional conflict? CIE is one of the interventions identified, and as such, the second question can also be answered affirmatively, i.e. is confronting, identifying and exploring (CIE) differences in perception about feasibility an intervention measure that is encountered in practice? It may be concluded that it contributes towards a reduced level of conflict by virtue of its use in cooperative climates only. The hypothesis is thereby confirmed in practice. Final Conclusion The hypothesis developed based on literature searches was confirmed by experiment within a simulated environment, at least insofar as a competitive climate was involved and insofar as the simulation involved two professionals. Expert research revealed two interventions that contributed towards preventing dysfunctional conflicts. The second case study investigation ultimately confirmed that interventions postulated in the hypothesis had been found to contribute towards preventing dysfunctional conflicts in practice, but that additional interventions existed that also contributed towards preventing dysfunctional conflicts. The following picture thus emerges if all interventions uncovered throughout the entire study are consolidated. Partnership Climate Cooperative Feasibility Getting to know one another's motivations (M) (T) Taking intrinsic measures = risk measures, plan modifications, return/cash flow calculations, Best Alternative Without Agreement (BAWA), alternatives and cost reallocation. (CIE) Confronting, identifying and exploring differences in perception ________________________________________ Relationship Getting to know one another professionally (K) Personal contact/preliminary discussions (P), working together (W), taking a stance (S) = Removal, threatening, intervention from above, submission, time out, third-party involvement and increase mandate. (I) Informally managing relationship-related aspects. Feasibility Getting to know one another's motivations (M) (C) Confronting differences in perception Competitive Relationship Getting to know one another professionally (K) Personal discussions (D), taking a stance (S) = Threatening, submission, intervention from above and removal Summary of interventions uncovered throughout the entire study that contributed towards preventing dysfunctional conflicts from arising as part of urban development-related PPPs. These interventions address aspects of feasibility and relationship in cooperative and competitive climates. The final conclusion is that dysfunctional conflicts arising as part of urban development-related PPPs can be prevented by managing feasibility- and relationship- Recommendations Practical recommendations follow the final conclusion. These have been summarized below. It is recommended that interventions be taken if the initial negotiation phase starts out in a competitive fashion by allowing both parties to get to know one another professionally. If the climate is cautiously cooperative in the initial phase, then this climate should be nurtured by allowing both parties to get to know one another's motivations for the project. During intermediate phases of negotiation being held in a cooperative climate, it is recommended that both parties confront, identify and explore any differences in perception concerning feasibility in order to prevent the process from stalling or deteriorating. In order to maintain a cooperative climate, it is recommended that interventions be taken involving personal contact, meeting for preliminary discussions, working together or informally managing relationship-related aspects. If intermediate phases are being held in a structurally competitive climate, then it is recommended that interventions be taken involving personal discussions. Lastly, if final phases of negotiation are being held in a cooperative climate, then intrinsic measures should be taken, whereas if the climate is competitive, then interventions should be taken by explicitly adopting a stance. In Conclusion The study ends with a reflection on the research conducted, as well as recommendations for further investigation, these being the role of assumptions in establishing and preventing dysfunctional conflicts, and the correlation between social motivation and contract quality.