Han, J; Rapoport, A and Fong, P S W (2020) Incentive structures in multi-partner project teams. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(1), pp. 49-65. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of incentive contracts in multi-partner project teams (MPPTs) on the agents' effort expenditure and project performance, analyze how the agents allocate their efforts between production and cooperation and offer suggestions for project managers on how to design incentive contracts. Design/methodology/approach: The paper proposes a model of MPPT in which agents are inequity-averse and their effort expenditures are exogenously bounded. An extensive numerical example is presented in online Appendix 2 to illustrate the theoretical results. Findings: The paper suggests that if the potential benefit of the agents' cooperation in MPPT is high or if both agents exhibit inequity aversion and the efforts' marginal costs are low, then group-based incentive contracts outperform individual-based incentive contracts. It also shows that the impact of the incentive contract on the agents' effort expenditure and project team performance is correlated with several critical project attributes. Originality/value: Fulfilling a need to study the design of incentive structures in MPPTs, the paper complements the existing literature in three ways. First, in contrast to single-partner project teams, it considers projects with multiple partners where cooperation between them enhances the project outcome. Second, rather than focusing on individual production problems, it considers multi-task projects with constrained efforts that must be allocated between production and cooperation. Third, it analyzes the effects of changes in the project attributes, incentive intensities and information transparency on the effectiveness of the contract.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision support systems; methodology; optimization; project management |
| Index terms: | project performance, effectiveness, project team, project management, transparency, project manager, project outcome, methodology, cooperation, agent, decision support, incentive contract |
| Subjects: | project delivery, contractual arrangements, psychology, practitioner, project completion, profession, decision analysis, professional development, project management theory and practice, research methods, performance management |
| Topics: | Procurement, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Organizational Design, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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