College - Author 1
College of Architecture and Environmental Design
Department - Author 1
Construction Management Department
Degree Name - Author 1
BS in Construction Management
Date
6-2024
Primary Advisor/Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Thomas Kommer, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Construction Management Department
Abstract/Summary
Effective communication in the built environment is crucial for project success, information relay, goal alignment, error prevention, and safety. Diverse parties, including general contractors, architects, engineers, and subcontractors, bring varying Thinking Styles to the table, as defined by Harrison and Bramson. These styles—Synthesist, Idealist, Pragmatist, Analyst, and Realist—impact collaboration and conflict within projects. This study aims to explore where thinking differs among these parties and the congruity of Thinking Styles within each group. Results of this study indicate a predominant Realist Thinking Style among general contractors and subcontractors with subcontractors equally leaning towards Analyst. Engineers, although expected to be Analysts, primarily identified as Pragmatists. Architects displayed a diverse range of thinking styles, uniquely including the only Synthesist in the study, reflecting their creative and often controversial approach. The findings reveal notable correlations between Thinking Styles and the Built Environment’s roles, suggesting that knowledge of these styles can enhance teamwork and mitigate conflicts. Realists and Analysts were seen as the easiest to work with, while Synthesists and Idealists were more challenging, highlighting the need for tailored communication strategies in diverse teams. This study emphasizes the importance of understanding Thinking Styles to improve collaboration and efficiency in the built environment.
URL: https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cmsp/807
Poster Board
SP - Proposal Form - Jaden Green - TK signed (2).pdf (294 kB)
Proposal
Senior Project Reflection Paper.pdf (29 kB)
Reflection
Student Evaluation Form (9-18).pdf (111 kB)
Student Evaluation