Ekström, M A; Björnsson, H C and Nass, C I (2003) Accounting for rater credibility when evaluating AEC subcontractors. Construction Management and Economics, 21(2), pp. 197-208. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
In consumer electronic markets, rating mechanisms are important facilitators of trust between market participants. This paper investigates whether source credibility theory can support the evaluation of bidders in architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) electronic market places. In contrast to consumer electronic marketplaces, the raters in AEC communities are skilled and connected, necessitating a reputation mechanism to account for the relationship between the user and the rater. To solve this problem, TrustBuilder, a prototype rating tool, facilitates information sharing between peer industry practitioners by calculating a weighted rating based on source credibility theory. An experiment shows that AEC industry practitioners who evaluate bidding subcontractors trusted the information provided by TrustBuilder significantly more than information from a standard unweighted rating tool.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; construction; electronic commerce; reputation mechanism; source credibility; trust |
| Index terms: | markets, information sharing, bidder, facilitator, bidding, subcontractor, source credibility theory, accounting, practitioner, experiment, electronic commerce, prototype |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, digital commerce, bidding, modelling and simulation, practitioner, data collection methods, sociology, data exchange |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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