A decision-support system for choosing between traditional and alternative project delivery methods for bundled projects

IF 3.6 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Ghiwa Assaf, Rayan H. Assaad
{"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":"24 1","pages":""},"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.

在捆绑项目的传统和替代项目交付方法之间进行选择的决策支持系统
目的项目捆绑是一种创新做法,它将多个基础设施项目组合或捆绑成一份合同。虽然项目捆绑有各种好处,但各机构在捆绑项目时也面临一些挑战,包括正确评估相关项目交付方法(PDM)的可行性(或不可行性)。更具体地说,项目所有者面临的挑战是如何为捆绑项目在传统项目管理方法和替代项目管理方法之间做出正确选择。尽管一些研究致力于提供与项目捆绑相关的不同方面的指导原则,但之前还没有研究帮助项目业主对捆绑项目进行与项目管理相关的可行性分析,因为捆绑项目不同于普通的单一交付项目。为了填补这一知识空白,本文开发了一种决策支持工具,帮助各机构决定其捆绑项目应选择传统的还是替代性的 PDM(即是否采用设计-招标-建设(DBB)PDM)。首先,制定并向业界专家分发了一份专家调查表,以量化 25 个项目捆绑目标的重要性。其次,采用主成分分析法确定不同项目捆绑目标的权重。第三,通过一系列统计测试来确定不同的可行性等级。研究结果表明,传统的项目设计管理方法(即 DBB 方法)对捆绑项目的可行性(或不可行性)划分为六个等级。研究成果还反映出,以下五个项目捆绑目标最有助于提高传统项目需求管理(即 DBB 法)在捆绑项目中的可行性:(1)具有明确的设计特征;(2)需要事先了解类似项目规模和范围或具有相关经验;(3)按计划完成整个项目;(4)将支出率控制在现金流计划内;以及(5)尽早获得特定的立法、监管和司法要求。原创性/价值这项研究为各机构和项目所有者提供了一个决策支持系统,帮助他们确定是传统的项目需求管理还是替代性的项目管理更适合其捆绑计划的具体目标,从而丰富了相关知识。通过做出正确的项目需求管理决策,项目所有者可以改进他们的捆绑实践(尤其是在项目需求管理的适当选择方面),并最终提高捆绑项目的绩效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Business, Management and Accounting-General Business,Management and Accounting
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
19.50%
发文量
226
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信