Toward a federated cross-organizational construction safety knowledge recommendation: A dual-incentive mechanism integrating worker satisfaction

Zhang, S.; Zhong, B.; Sepasgozar, S. M. E.; Xia, Z.; Zhong, X. and Guan, Q. (2026) Toward a federated cross-organizational construction safety knowledge recommendation: A dual-incentive mechanism integrating worker satisfaction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(10): 04026159, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Despite the effectiveness of personalized safety knowledge enhancement training, existing research overlooks the challenges posed by fragmented worker data and strict privacy regulations. To overcome these challenges, this study proposes a novel FedCSKR framework aimed at achieving privacy-preserving cross-organizational construction safety knowledge recommendation (CSKR). Nonetheless, the effectiveness of CSKR depends on the decisions of both requesters and providers. We develop a game model to capture their interactions and show, through evolutionary analysis, that spontaneous collaboration is unsustainable, leading the system to a noncooperative equilibrium without external incentives. To promote cooperation, we propose a dual-incentive mechanism that integrates model training performance with worker satisfaction, encouraging providers to allocate more resources to safety knowledge recommendation. Modeling and simulations show that the dual-incentive mechanism yields stronger incentive intensity, higher provider effort, and greater requester benefits versus single-model training incentives, while remaining robust across cost and risk variations. Specifically, incentive intensity can be increased by over 98.3% and provider effort levels by more than 197.4%, while simultaneously helping to mitigate the requester's exposure to uncertainty arising from model performance variability. Theoretical contributions of this study include the integration of federated learning with incentive-driven contract design in CSKR, representing the first effort, to our knowledge, that incorporates worker satisfaction into the incentive mechanism of the FedCSKR. Practically, this study offers a structured decision-making framework to assist construction managers in implementing privacy-compliant, effective, and collaborative CSKR. Overall, this study facilitates cross-organizational collaboration in CSKR and contributes to advancing personalized safety training.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction safety knowledge recommendation; cross-organizational collaboration; federated learning; game theory; incentive mechanism
Index terms: collaboration, variation, game theory, modelling, worker satisfaction, variability, construction manager, integration, cooperation, decision-making, safety training, privacy, construction safety, regulation, interaction, exposure, effectiveness
Subjects: performance management, decision analysis, behavioral psychology, public and environmental health, environmental health, political science, decision models, analytical methods, occupational health and safety management, professional ethics, statistical analysis, profession, organizational analysis, psychology, management, contractual condition
Topics: Quality Management, Legal Issues, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Sustainability, Human Resources, Contract Administration, Governance, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety
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