"A Brilliant Invention: Inventing the American Constitution" is an interesting perspective on the creation of the US Constitution. It concentrates on the people and process of creation, rather than provide historical analysis of causes and effects. It's a fairly brief book at 210 pages.
It starts by setting the stage of the political context. This is not a historical analysis with explanations and reasons. It's a statement of what was happening politically and why the constitutional convention was called. It covers the political context of why some people favored or opposed, attended or avoided the convention. It also covers the technological limitations of the period, e.g., the need to organize your business affairs for being out of touch for several months because there is no telephone, telegraph, or fast post. News and post took a few weeks to travel between cities.
Next, it covers the organization and process of the convention. This is unusual, because it is an explanation of the organizational dynamics, not a discussion of how the convention affected history. It explains how the documents were created, how the committees are structured, how the meetings are structured, and how this is affected by the personalities involved. I was especially amused by the name of "Committee for Postponed Items", which reminds me a lot of DICOM's Working Group 6 in terms of it's internal structure. You don't need to be an organizational dynamics expert to read this section. It's at a level that the novice can understand.
Finally, it covers the conclusion and publication, without too much extrapolation into reasons for subsequent historical events.
I noticed one interesting difference between the political structure of the American Revolution and the current structure of world governments. They had no great leader. Today's governments are all structured around a single leader.
The American Revolution and the creation of the constitution were driven by experienced politicians with strong legal expertise and decades of experience, but nobody was the leader. There were always multiple leaders with their own specialties. All of the leaders also had major weaknesses, there were powerful arguments and disagreements, and they worked out an acceptable compromise because the alternative was defeat and destruction. The closest to a single leader was George Washington, but he resolutely stayed out of the political process. For the rest you have names like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, etc.
They expected the country to be led by a similar structure in Congress, with multiple powerful politicians but no single leader. They expected an efficient but subservient executive similar to George Washington, who expressed his opinions but carried out the policies decided by Congress.
They would probably have been very surprised by how long it took for this structure to collapse in the US. It was not until the 20th century that the US shifted to it's current process of selecting a single leader to make all important decisions. They were wondering whether the Constitution would survive for more than a few decades.