{"title":"A decision-support system for choosing between traditional and alternative project delivery methods for bundled projects","authors":"Ghiwa Assaf, Rayan H. Assaad","doi":"10.1108/ecam-01-2024-0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Project bundling is an innovative practice that groups or bundles several infrastructure projects into a single contract. While project bundling has various benefits, agencies are facing some challenges when bundling their projects, including properly assessing the feasibility (or infeasibility) of project delivery methods (PDMs) of interest. More specifically, project owners face the challenge of properly selecting between traditional and alternative PDMs for their bundled projects. Although some research efforts were devoted to providing guidelines in relation to different aspects related to project bundling, no previous study was conducted to help project owners performing PDMs-related feasibility analysis for bundled projects, which differ from normal, singly delivered projects. To fill this knowledge gap, this paper develops a decision-support tool that assists agencies in deciding whether they should select a traditional or alternative PDM (i.e. whether to go with the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) PDM or not) for their bundled projects.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>An analytical methodology comprised of four main steps was followed in this paper. First, an expert survey was developed and distributed to industry experts to quantify the importance of 25 project bundling objectives. Second, principal component analysis was used to determine the weights for the different project bundling objectives. Third, a series of statistical tests was implemented to identify different feasibility tiers. Fourth, a user-friendly decision-support tool was developed, and its capabilities were demonstrated.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The results showed that six tiers exist to classify the feasibility (or infeasibility) of traditional PDMs (i.e. the DBB method) for bundled projects. The research outcomes have also reflected that the following five project bundling objectives contribute the most to making traditional PDMs (i.e. the DBB method) more feasible for bundled projects: (1) Having well-defined design features; (2) Requiring prior knowledge or experience with similar project size and scope; (3) Completing the overall project on schedule; (4) Keeping rate of expenditures within cash flow plan; and (5) Acquiring specific legislative, regulatory and jurisdictional requirements early on.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This research adds to the body of knowledge by equipping agencies and project owners with a decision-support system that helps them identify whether traditional or alternative PDMs are more appropriate for the specific objectives of their bundling program(s). By making the right PDM decision, project owners can enhance their bundling practices (especially in relation to the PDM proper selection) and ultimately the performance of their bundled projects.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":11888,"journal":{"name":"Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-01-2024-0043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Project bundling is an innovative practice that groups or bundles several infrastructure projects into a single contract. While project bundling has various benefits, agencies are facing some challenges when bundling their projects, including properly assessing the feasibility (or infeasibility) of project delivery methods (PDMs) of interest. More specifically, project owners face the challenge of properly selecting between traditional and alternative PDMs for their bundled projects. Although some research efforts were devoted to providing guidelines in relation to different aspects related to project bundling, no previous study was conducted to help project owners performing PDMs-related feasibility analysis for bundled projects, which differ from normal, singly delivered projects. To fill this knowledge gap, this paper develops a decision-support tool that assists agencies in deciding whether they should select a traditional or alternative PDM (i.e. whether to go with the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) PDM or not) for their bundled projects.
Design/methodology/approach
An analytical methodology comprised of four main steps was followed in this paper. First, an expert survey was developed and distributed to industry experts to quantify the importance of 25 project bundling objectives. Second, principal component analysis was used to determine the weights for the different project bundling objectives. Third, a series of statistical tests was implemented to identify different feasibility tiers. Fourth, a user-friendly decision-support tool was developed, and its capabilities were demonstrated.
Findings
The results showed that six tiers exist to classify the feasibility (or infeasibility) of traditional PDMs (i.e. the DBB method) for bundled projects. The research outcomes have also reflected that the following five project bundling objectives contribute the most to making traditional PDMs (i.e. the DBB method) more feasible for bundled projects: (1) Having well-defined design features; (2) Requiring prior knowledge or experience with similar project size and scope; (3) Completing the overall project on schedule; (4) Keeping rate of expenditures within cash flow plan; and (5) Acquiring specific legislative, regulatory and jurisdictional requirements early on.
Originality/value
This research adds to the body of knowledge by equipping agencies and project owners with a decision-support system that helps them identify whether traditional or alternative PDMs are more appropriate for the specific objectives of their bundling program(s). By making the right PDM decision, project owners can enhance their bundling practices (especially in relation to the PDM proper selection) and ultimately the performance of their bundled projects.
期刊介绍：
ECAM publishes original peer-reviewed research papers, case studies, technical notes, book reviews, features, discussions and other contemporary articles that advance research and practice in engineering, construction and architectural management. In particular, ECAM seeks to advance integrated design and construction practices, project lifecycle management, and sustainable construction. The journal’s scope covers all aspects of architectural design, design management, construction/project management, engineering management of major infrastructure projects, and the operation and management of constructed facilities. ECAM also addresses the technological, process, economic/business, environmental/sustainability, political, and social/human developments that influence the construction project delivery process.
ECAM strives to establish strong theoretical and empirical debates in the above areas of engineering, architecture, and construction research. Papers should be heavily integrated with the existing and current body of knowledge within the field and develop explicit and novel contributions. Acknowledging the global character of the field, we welcome papers on regional studies but encourage authors to position the work within the broader international context by reviewing and comparing findings from their regional study with studies conducted in other regions or countries whenever possible.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
