Arthur, A C (2016) The impact of systems differentiation and affect heuristics in intuitive construction risk management decision making systems. PhD thesis, University College London, UK.
Abstract
The existing theoretical evidence of intuitive dominated construction risk management practices (Akintoye and Macleod, 1997; Lyons and Skitmore, 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha, 2010), suggests corresponding reliance on psychological stimulus in the decision making processes (Slovic et al, 2003). The prevailing construction management research publications however appear limited in exploring the psychology behind the intuitive risk identification and treatment processes. The purpose of this study therefore was to address the resulting data gap by drawing upon theories from systems thinking and behavioural science in examining the behavioural patterns of intuitive construction risk management decision making systems, in the context of the sources and structure of risk perceptions, and the psychological issues involved in mixing tools and techniques from different systems of thinking and decision making. The empirical findings from a four case qualitative research methodology have revealed substantial evidence in support of the three research theoretical propositions: risk perception categorisation within the construction project delivery system reflecting the structure of the differentiated specialist roles; psychological difficulties associated with intuitive risk identification of events outside the scope of our heuristics; incompatibilities of mixing decision processing approaches and data presentation formats from different systems of thinking and decision making. The study has also made recommendations for future research including, empirical investigations to test the sensitivity of the other sources of affective heuristics including, personal; project; organisational; and industrial experiences; in influencing risk perception categorisation; empirical studies to critically map out the heuristics boundaries of the different specialist roles, and also to develop a model for identifying the heuristics indicators for a construction project to ensure compatibility in the affective specialist-role stimulus of project team members and their specific project context; empirical investigations into the appropriate qualitative data presentation formats which will be compatible with the prevailing intuitive construction risk management practices.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision making; heuristic; project team; psychology; risk identification; risk management; roles |
| Index terms: | construction project, decision-making, qualitative research, methodology, evidence, differentiation, psychology, boundaries, publication, systems thinking, management research, risk perception, science, drawing, construction project delivery, risk identification, empirical study, investigation, risk management, project team, heuristic, decision-making process |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, project delivery, risk assessment, data collection methods, research design and methodology, project controls, decision analysis, property law, analytical methods, research dissemination and communication, evaluation and assessment methods, organization, specialized education, environmental hazards, behavioral psychology, research methods, production management, financial risk |
| Topics: | Education, Legal Issues, Risk Management, Sustainability, Project Management, Organizational Design, Time Control, Design Practice, Cost Management, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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