Ren, Z; Carter, C D; Hassan, T M and Anumba, C J (2005) Trust building for SMEs through an e-engineering hub. Journal of Construction Procurement, 11(1),
Abstract
Trust building is a vital issue and enabler for eBusiness. It has been studied at various stages of eBusiness from initial trust establishment, contract negotiation and formation, to fulfilment and closure. Current studies mainly focus on building trust through the improvement of the social business environment and online security by adopting latest technologies. This paper introduces a new trust building approach developed in the eHUBs (e-Engineering enabled by Holonomic and Universal Broker Services) project. Unlike most of the current trust building studies, this approach fosters trust building between Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) and their clients through collaborative project planning (PP). The e-Hub provides a transparent, traceable and predictable collaborative PP and contract negotiation platform.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | engineering e-hub, trust building, collaborative project planning |
| Index terms: | collaborative project, platform, contract negotiation, small and medium sized enterprise, initial trust, trust-building, broker |
| Subjects: | digital design, contract management, psychology, contractual arrangements, organization, profession |
| Topics: | Procurement, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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