She, L (2013) Trust, mistrust and distrust in alliancing. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
Despite the success of many alliancing projects in Australia and New Zealand, there has been an increasingly decline in the use of this procurement method for infrastructure projects by the public sector. Research has found that trust, mistrust and distrust between the Alliance Leadership Team (ALT) and Alliance Management Team (AMT) were the biggest issues that impacted on the effectiveness of the alliance. There is currently a discrepancy in the nomenclature used for trust terminologies, especially the understanding of mistrust and distrust in project relationships which is a gap for research. Current research on alliancing has generally been very positive in the potential for alliancing contracting to facilitate trust within the project however, trust conditions are volatile under different business situations within the gain share and pain share modes, therefore, the criticality of different trust attributes under mishaps especially, is also another gap within research. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to examine the criticality of different trust attributes from the alliancing participants' surveys. Results demonstrate that only in a gain share mode cognitive-affect based trust is preferred for both the conditions of trust and mistrust. However, in a pain sharing mode, cognitive based trust prevails over cognitive-affect, system and affect based trust for the conditions of both trust and distrust. This research demonstrates that the values of team work and relational bonding only occurs as a lag effect indication of the cost performance of the project and has little effect on governing the attitude and culture of which the people within the construction industry operates, in terms of organizational change. Unless there is a change in the fundamental legal framework of which business is conducted under common law, culture and the continuing simultaneous use of other non-relational procurement systems may determine the eventual behavior of any business transaction.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alliancing; analytical hierarchy process; trust; mistrust; distrust |
| Index terms: | cost performance, construction industry, analytical hierarchy process, infrastructure project, effectiveness, procurement system, Australia, survey, public sector, New Zealand, alliancing, pain, procurement method, organizational change |
| Subjects: | performance management, economics, Geography, health conditions and diseases, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, administrative law, decision-making and optimization, data collection methods, business, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Procurement, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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