比较CM/GC和DBB在重复商业建设中的成本、进度和质量

Q1 Social Sciences
D. Patterson, C. Farnsworth, D. Hutchings, D. Eggett, Justin E. Weidman
{"title":"比较CM/GC和DBB在重复商业建设中的成本、进度和质量","authors":"D. Patterson, C. Farnsworth, D. Hutchings, D. Eggett, Justin E. Weidman","doi":"10.1080/15578771.2021.2013998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Design/Bid/Build (DBB) delivery is the traditional approach for establishing the least cost for building projects, but other alternative project delivery methods have become increasingly popular. Although multiple studies have compared delivery methods for vertical construction, there have not been any comprehensive studies quantifying how delivery methods compare specifically for repetitive commercial construction. This research utilized a mixed methods approach to compare the cost, schedule, and quality of Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) delivered projects with DBB projects for repetitive commercial construction, using 173 facilities built with the same base floorplan. A comprehensive quantitative comparison was conducted, excluding potential confounding variables and including short- and long-term direct and indirect costs, construction time, and quality assessment scores. Contractors and project managers were also surveyed regarding their perceptions of CM/GC process effectiveness in a repetitive construction environment. This research demonstrated that the CM/GC delivery method was more effective for repetitive commercial construction, uniquely quantifying the relative cost, schedule, and quality improvements of CM/GC delivery over DBB projects. Compared to DBB, CM/GC projects produced total construction cost savings of 5.4%, a 20% shorter construction cycle time, consistently higher quality assessment scores, and an overall reduction in repair costs of 34%.","PeriodicalId":39782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Construction Education and Research","volume":"29 1","pages":"166 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Cost, Schedule, and Quality of CM/GC and DBB Project Delivery for Repetitive Commercial Construction\",\"authors\":\"D. Patterson, C. Farnsworth, D. Hutchings, D. Eggett, Justin E. Weidman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15578771.2021.2013998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Design/Bid/Build (DBB) delivery is the traditional approach for establishing the least cost for building projects, but other alternative project delivery methods have become increasingly popular. Although multiple studies have compared delivery methods for vertical construction, there have not been any comprehensive studies quantifying how delivery methods compare specifically for repetitive commercial construction. This research utilized a mixed methods approach to compare the cost, schedule, and quality of Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) delivered projects with DBB projects for repetitive commercial construction, using 173 facilities built with the same base floorplan. A comprehensive quantitative comparison was conducted, excluding potential confounding variables and including short- and long-term direct and indirect costs, construction time, and quality assessment scores. Contractors and project managers were also surveyed regarding their perceptions of CM/GC process effectiveness in a repetitive construction environment. This research demonstrated that the CM/GC delivery method was more effective for repetitive commercial construction, uniquely quantifying the relative cost, schedule, and quality improvements of CM/GC delivery over DBB projects. Compared to DBB, CM/GC projects produced total construction cost savings of 5.4%, a 20% shorter construction cycle time, consistently higher quality assessment scores, and an overall reduction in repair costs of 34%.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Construction Education and Research\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"166 - 186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Construction Education and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2021.2013998\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Construction Education and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2021.2013998","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

设计/投标/建造(DBB)交付是建筑项目建立最低成本的传统方法,但其他替代项目交付方法也越来越受欢迎。虽然有多项研究比较了垂直建筑的交付方法,但还没有任何全面的研究量化了重复商业建筑的交付方法的比较。本研究采用混合方法比较施工经理/总承包商(CM/GC)交付的项目与DBB项目的成本、进度和质量,用于重复商业建设,使用173个具有相同基础平面图的设施。进行了全面的定量比较,排除了潜在的混杂变量,包括短期和长期的直接和间接成本、施工时间和质量评估分数。承包商和项目经理也被调查了关于他们在重复施工环境中对CM/GC过程有效性的看法。该研究表明,CM/GC交付方法对于重复性商业建设更有效,独特地量化了CM/GC交付相对于DBB项目的相对成本、进度和质量改进。与DBB相比,CM/GC项目节省了5.4%的总施工成本,缩短了20%的施工周期时间,始终保持较高的质量评估分数,并降低了34%的维修成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Cost, Schedule, and Quality of CM/GC and DBB Project Delivery for Repetitive Commercial Construction
ABSTRACT Design/Bid/Build (DBB) delivery is the traditional approach for establishing the least cost for building projects, but other alternative project delivery methods have become increasingly popular. Although multiple studies have compared delivery methods for vertical construction, there have not been any comprehensive studies quantifying how delivery methods compare specifically for repetitive commercial construction. This research utilized a mixed methods approach to compare the cost, schedule, and quality of Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) delivered projects with DBB projects for repetitive commercial construction, using 173 facilities built with the same base floorplan. A comprehensive quantitative comparison was conducted, excluding potential confounding variables and including short- and long-term direct and indirect costs, construction time, and quality assessment scores. Contractors and project managers were also surveyed regarding their perceptions of CM/GC process effectiveness in a repetitive construction environment. This research demonstrated that the CM/GC delivery method was more effective for repetitive commercial construction, uniquely quantifying the relative cost, schedule, and quality improvements of CM/GC delivery over DBB projects. Compared to DBB, CM/GC projects produced total construction cost savings of 5.4%, a 20% shorter construction cycle time, consistently higher quality assessment scores, and an overall reduction in repair costs of 34%.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Construction Education and Research is a respected international refereed journal that publishes original works that address cutting edge issues related to construction around the globe. The Journal supports the mission of the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC), a professional association comprised of about 100 universities and colleges. The ASC encourages the sharing of ideas and knowledge and promotes excellence in curricula, teaching, research and service relating to the construction industry.
×
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