Eriksson, T and Kadefors, A (2012) Trust, control and knowledge integration in a rock tunnel project. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Rock tunnel projects that experience geological uncertainties tend to be both lengthier and more costly than planned. Traditional contract arrangements have proved to be less suitable when uncertainty is high; problem-solving being further hampered by contract-related distrust, communication failures and disputes. To efficiently respond to uncertainty and control risks of time and cost overruns, the knowledge of specialists in different firms needs to be mobilized. Findings from a case study of a railway tunnel project in Sweden aim to describe knowledge integration, communication and decision making related to geological conditions, comprising both formal and informal aspects. Findings show that formal and informal aspects are often complementary, also when they are contradictory, but that knowledge integration may suffer from a more formalized communication. Further, it is also important to consider relationships within the main actors' organizations as well as relationships and structures extending beyond the individual project.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; control; knowledge management; relational contracting |
| Index terms: | cost overrun, case study, relational contracting, Sweden, tunnel, decision-making, contract arrangement, knowledge integration, dispute, knowledge management |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, financial and cost management, professional development, dispute resolution, infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods, decision analysis, Geography |
| Topics: | Information Management, Legal Issues, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Procurement, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Risk Management |
| 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