Control modes and mechanisms in construction project teams: drivers and consequences

Abstract

Abstract:Control is purposive or goal directed, hence, there are underlying drivers and consequences of the exercise of control modes and mechanisms. In response to recent empirical findings that cast doubts on the empowerment-control incompatibility thesis, the broader question of whether control is predominantly "controlling" or rather supportive in work environments is addressed. Drivers and consequences of control modes and mechanisms in five project teams involved in two ongoing construction projects in Hong Kong are explored. As an interpretive and exploratory study, a qualitative research design and the case study approach in particular was appropriate. Framework, category formation and cross-case analysis techniques were employed to analyse data collected through documentary analysis, passive observations and semi-structured face-to-face interviews. The exercise of control is driven by a range of factors emanating from the individual-, team-, organization-and project-level. Control modes and mechanisms also have performance related consequences for individuals, teams and organizations and are predominantly attributable to self-based control mechanisms. Preliminary evidence of the important link between self-control/empowerment and performance is therefore provided which is instructive for the performance improvement agenda in the construction industry.

The Variety of Governance Structures Beyond Market and Hierarchy

“…Nevertheless, the construction industry seems particularly suited for examining a variety of governance structures, not least because in this comparatively conservative but highly competitive industry it seems rather unlikely that exotic, inefficient governance structures will prevail in any large number. While our setting is the German construction industry and we cannot make claims for other geographic settings, the products produced in this industry, the basic trades in construction, the set-up of construction projects, the roles of general contractors and their suppliers, as well as the challenges they face in their interactions seem largely similar across countries (Costantino & Pietroforte, 2002;Tuuli, Rowlinson, & Tas Yong, 2010;White & Lui, 2005). We therefore do not believe that our setting and sample give rise to a unique, unparalleled picture of governance structures in the construction industry and their antecedents.…”

Construction Project Control Methodologies And Productivity Improvement: EVM, BIM, LBM

“…The methodology for the explorative study is critical realism (Smyth and Morris, 2007) thus the research report provides descriptive explanations. An interpretative method of data collection and analysis supports the aggregation of the concepts and experiences of project managers as a solution to extensive variations attributed to individuals and organizations (Creswell, 2014;Tuuli et al, 2010). Indeed contributing to project management theory is based on variation inclusion (Smyth and Morris, 2007).…”

Selecting control strategies in projects of intangible outputs: empirical evidence from architectural and engineering design projects

“…Clients adopt control strategies to motivate their partners to fulfill the desired project outcomes (Kirsch et al, 2002;Nieminen and Lehtonen, 2008;Tiwana, 2008). Studies have extensively examined how clients' project managers select formal and social controls in projects with tangible outputs, for instance construction projects (Ning, 2017;Tuuli et al, 2010), information technology (Rustagi et al, 2008) and information systems development (Kirsch et al, 2002;Remus and Wiener, 2012; Selecting control strategies for design projects Wiener et al, 2016). According to the agency theory, selecting control strategies is mainly determined by task characteristics (e.g.…”