Manu, E; Ankrah, N; Chinyio, E A and Proverbs, D (2016) Functional consequences of trust in the construction supply chain: A multi-dimensional view. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
A great deal of construction management literature has linked trust to the emergence of cooperative behaviours that contribute to successful project outcomes. However, some have questioned the functional relevance of trust in contractual relations, arguing that control-induced cooperation, which is less fragile than its trust-induced equivalent, can emerge from the enforcement of contracts. These mixed views are further complicated by the multi-dimensional nature of trust, which could mean that different trust dimensions can have differing functional consequences on the supply chain relationship. The aim of this study was therefore to provide some clarity on the functional consequence of trust in construction supply chain relationships during projects. By adopting a case study research strategy, empirical evidence was gathered through semi-structured interviews with supply chain parties from across four projects in the UK. A thematic data analysis approach was then used to uncover multiple perspectives on the functional consequences of trust in the construction supply chain. Findings revealed that weaker dimensions of trust that are impersonal (cognition-based and systems-based), as well as the stronger (relational-based) dimension of trust, all fostered beneficial behaviours in the supply chain (effective knowledge sharing and self-organising behaviours). However, additional behavioural consequences (relational flexibility and extra commitment) emerged when trust was of a more relational nature, except that such behaviours were only a pre-requisite for project success when work packages were considered to be very high-risk. This implies that different trust dimensions and their associated behavioural consequences can be prioritized and promoted in the supply chain based on perceived work package risks, without over-emphasising relationally derived trust as the only pre-requisite for fostering positive behaviours and project success. This study provides a more penetrating analysis of how different trust dimensions varyingly influence behaviour of supply chain participants and consequently project specific outcomes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cognition-based trust; construction supply chains; cooperation; relational-based trust; systems-based trust. |
| Index terms: | enforcement, dimension, contractual relations, cooperation, emergence, cognition, evidence, construction supply chain, self-organizing, strategy, commitment, knowledge sharing, project outcome, interview, cooperative behaviour, data analysis, case study, package, project success |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, knowledge management, health monitoring assessment and metrics, psychology, construction logistics, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, project completion, systems engineering, cognitive psychology, sociology, health safety and environment, project management theory and practice, management, contract law |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Supply Chain Management, Organizational Design, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Procurement |
| 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