Oyemomi, B; Hare, B and Tong, M (2016) Exploring human resource incentivisation for public sector construction project delivery in Scotland. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
The construction sector is widely accepted to have a significant human resource orientation and dependence. This provides the justification for the importance of the incentivisation process to the success of construction projects, reinforced with the promotion of motivational tools such as incentive schemes in the human resource management literature for the engagement of human resources. This research aims to critically evaluate the types and prevalence of incentive schemes implemented towards the successful delivery of public sector construction projects. A detailed literature review provided a thematic categorisation of human resource incentives into 5 classes, namely; financial, non-financial, intrinsic, extrinsic and disincentives. The review further revealed a substantial research gap on the understanding of the incentivisation process as a tool to aid project delivery. Key to the attainment of this research aim is the adoption of a qualitative phenomenological methodological approach which seeks to analyse the lived experiences of individuals. The experiences of construction and project managers with experience on the implementation of workforce incentive schemes in public sector construction projects, particularly in local authorities, public private partnerships such as the Scottish Futures Trust hub projects, have been sought in semi-structured interviews. The initial findings reveal a significant absence of incentive schemes within public organisations who oversee the delivery of public sector construction projects. It also revealed a significant outsourcing of public sector construction projects to private contractors and construction organisations, thereby creating a paradoxical scenario of workforce incentives for public sector construction projects being delivered by private sector construction organisations. These findings also question the legitimacy on the demarcation between the private and public sectors in the construction industry. The phenomenological approach adopted in this research revealed a problematic and negative understanding to the word 'incentives' and the generally defensive stance adopted which contrasts with the literature reviewed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | human resource management; motivation; incentives; public sector; rewards |
| Index terms: | public sector, motivation, construction project delivery, local authority, private sector, literature review, human resource management, outsourcing, promotion, project manager, interview, construction organization, public private partnership, legitimacy, incentivization, project delivery, construction sector, implementation, construction industry, Scotland, construction project, human resource |
| Subjects: | administrative law, industry analysis, sociology, project controls, production management, Geography, management, project delivery, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, psychology, business, organization, data collection methods, risk assessment, profession |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Human Resources, Time Control, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| 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