Uusitalo, P; Lappalainen, E; Seppänen, O; Pikas, E; Peltokorpi, A; Menzhinskii, N and Piitulainen, M (2021) To trust or not to trust: Is trust a prerequisite for solving design quality problems? Construction Management and Economics, 39(4), pp. 279-297. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Low trust levels among project parties are generally believed to harm construction project performance, but the role of trust in the context of information flow and solving design quality problems (DQP) remains understudied. Whereas lean design management research highlights the importance of managing information flow, few studies have investigated the association between trust, information flow and DQP (or any combination thereof). This exploratory study investigates the association between trust and information flow in design projects and how these factors influence design quality. The paper presents a conceptual framework based on existing research on building design management and trust in a project context. The framework is elaborated on and validated using a single case study approach with multiple sites. The results indicate that even though the trust trend in the project is somewhat negatively connected to the overall amount of work and work in progress of DQP, increasing trust is not a prerequisite for solving DQP and that owners and contractors can have opposite opinions on the trust level. This study contributes to ongoing discussions about trust, information flow and design management and suggests that teams should focus on improving communication and collaboration to compensate for low trust levels.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design management; design quality; information flow; lean; trust |
| Index terms: | case study, owner, design management, construction project, collaboration, conceptual framework, design quality, exploratory study, information flow, project party, building design management |
| Subjects: | management, theoretical framing, research methods, production management, design process, sociology, information systems, data collection methods, professional practice |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management |
| 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