Kadefors, A (2005) Trust in construction: Cognitive traps as obstacles to collaborative contracting strategies. Journal of Construction Procurement, 11(2),
Abstract
Interest in partnering and more collaborative relations in construction has grown in recent years, but many clients are still reluctant to open up for closer collaboration with contractors. Based on an interview study of Swedish central government clients as well as on other studies of collaborative practices, this paper discusses the role of cognitive biases in client choices of contracting strategies. Tendencies to overemphasize the motivational effects of economic rewards and to attribute negative behaviour to personal disposition rather than to factors in the environment are considered. It is concluded that these biases combine to create two traps affecting client decision-making. First, a general propensity to underestimate the potential for cooperation. Second, a tendency to focus on economic incentives and selection of individual partners, while neglecting to establish an organizational framework that favours relationship development and multidisciplinary collaboration. It is suggested that organizational and government policies promoting collaborative contracting strategies with explicit attention to softer aspects may help escaping these traps.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | trust, communication, cooperation, cognitive traps |
| Index terms: | economic incentive, strategy, collaborative practice, bias, cooperation, partnering, interview, collaboration, decision-making, government policy |
| Subjects: | public policy, probability and distributions, collaborative management, data collection methods, economic analysis, psychology, decision analysis, management, partnership management |
| Topics: | Governance, Risk Management, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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