Hwang, S; Blay, K; Osmani, M and Wang, M (2026) Blockchain-integrated relational project governance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(3): 04026003, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Traditional contractual project governance often struggles to address the trust and collaboration challenges inherent in construction projects, which are characterized by fragmented teams, adversarial relationships, and rigid control mechanisms. Existing tools tend to prioritize compliance and monitoring rather than fostering long-term relational trust, resulting in delays, cost overruns, and reduced quality. This study addresses these challenges by posing the following research question: How can blockchain technology enhance relational project governance (RPG) to improve trust and collaboration in construction projects? To answer this question, a blockchain-integrated relational project governance (BRPG) model was developed and evaluated using a design science research (DSR) methodology, combining theoretical grounding with iterative design and validation cycles. The model leverages blockchain's secure, transparent, and immutable features to strengthen the trust-building dimensions of RPG - mutuality, flexibility, and solidarity. Results show that BRPG not only balances contractual and relational mechanisms but also significantly improves interorganizational trust and governance efficiency. This study contributes both theoretically and practically by offering an actionable governance framework for blockchain-enabled construction environments. Future research should focus on testing BRPG in large-scale, real-world projects and exploring its integration with other digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and digital twins to enhance governance intelligence.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | blockchain; design science research; flexibility; interorganizational trust; mutuality; relational project governance; solidarity |
| Index terms: | cost overrun, efficiency, governance, interorganizational, dimension, testing, blockchain, artificial intelligence, monitoring, relational trust, compliance, design science research, digital twin, digital technology, trust-building, construction project, collaboration, methodology, integration, validation |
| Subjects: | control systems, computing systems, business, artificial intelligence, financial and cost management, health monitoring assessment and metrics, professional development, management, design practice, performance management, organizational analysis, digital engineering, professional practice, psychology, production management, health safety and environment, research methods |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Site Management, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Human Resources, Governance, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Information Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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