Love, P E D; Davis, P R; Chevis, R and Edwards, D J (2011) Risk/reward compensation model for civil engineering infrastructure alliance projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(2), pp. 127-136. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A risk/reward model is described as that which aligns project participants' behaviors toward the achievement of a project's performance objectives through the use of incentives. A risk/reward model typically includes the following mechanisms: risk/reward shared percentages among nonowner participants, project cost risk/reward, noncost risk/reward, risk cap, and achievability of performance targets. This paper examines the influence of a risk/reward model on the behavior of project participants. Twenty-nine industry practitioners from eight civil infrastructure project alliances were interviewed. The interviews revealed that individual features of a risk/reward model identified had merits, but the achievability of performance targets model appeared to be the most appropriate for promoting positive behaviors within the project team. Additionally, it was found that all incentive aspects of the model examined led to positive and constructive behaviors occurring due to their perceived fairness and equity of payment structure. Participants indicated that having a commercial interest in an alliance's performance outcomes ensured collaboration and engagement throughout the project's life cycle. It is concluded that risk/reward sharing is pivotal to obtaining a successful project outcome for the procurement of civil engineering infrastructure projects when using an alliance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alliance; Australia; behaviors; compensation; project team; risk/reward model |
| Index terms: | infrastructure project, compensation, fairness, collaboration, project outcome, performance outcome, interview, Australia, project cost, practitioner, life cycle, project team |
| Subjects: | leadership, Geography, value management, project delivery, project completion, infrastructure and transport systems, management, practitioner, economics, data collection methods, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Project Management, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Cost Management, Legal Issues, Organizational Design, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here