Scharpff, J; Schraven, D; Volker, L; Spaan, M T J and de Weerdt, M M (2021) Can multiple contractors self-regulate their joint service delivery? A serious gaming experiment on road maintenance planning. Construction Management and Economics, 39(2), pp. 99-116. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The next step in the use of innovative, dynamic and performance-based contracts for service delivery by contractors could be use of monetary incentives to stimulate self-regulation of the network. Because it is currently unclear how performance-based payments in network tenders can effectively encourage network members to coordinate their own operations, a serious game was performed that simulates road maintenance planning to study changes in decision making and the emergence of network coordination. The experiments show that monetary incentives influence decision making, but their effect may be opposite to their intended aim and can lead to a competitive network. It was, however, also found that this competitiveness is not shown in networks where members are familiar with each other. This leads to the conclusion that penalty-based incentive mechanisms probably interfere with self-regulation and that the social dimension of contractor collaboration is paramount to the success of network-based contracting of construction activities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractors; gaming and simulation; network management; performance-based contracting; self-regulation |
| Index terms: | performance-based, emergence, decision-making, collaboration, self-regulation, experiment, penalty, gaming, performance-based contract, dimension, coordination, competitiveness, construction activity, service delivery |
| Subjects: | service delivery, management, performance measurement, decision-making and reasoning, regulatory law, behavioral psychology, systems engineering, market analysis, decision analysis, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, construction operations, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Procurement, Risk Management, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Site Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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