Identification of selection criteria for operational variations of the design-build system: a Delphi study in China/Atrankos kriteriju projektavimo ir statybos sistemos darbiniams variantams nustatymas: Delphi tyrimas Kinijoje.
Xia, Bo ; Chan, Albert P.C.
1. Introduction
Design-build (DB) is a delivery method where one entity or
consortium is contractually responsible for both design and construction
(Songer, Molenaar 1997). It has been demonstrated to be an effective
delivery method and gained its popularity worldwide in recent years
(Konchar, Sanvido 1998; Haque et al. 2001; Hale et al. 2009; Park et al.
2009; Rosner et al. 2009). In order to meet different sets of
construction circumstances, certain modifications to the basic
design-build system have emerged (CIOB 1988). Within the overall concept
of design-build, a number of operational variations of the DB system
have been developed, including, for example, develop-and-construction,
bridging, novation DB, package deals, direct DB and turnkey method
(Janssens 1991; Akintoye 1994; Beard et al. 2001; Masterman 2002;
Gransberg et al. 2006; Xia, Chan 2008).
The essential difference between the DB operational variations lies
in the proportion of design work undertaken by DB clients (Janssens
1991; Beard et al. 2001; Gransberg et al. 2006). For instance, in the
develop-andconstruction, the client will engage a design consultant to
complete a substantial part of design (more than 50% design) before
engaging a design-builder. This may preclude innovation on the part of
the design-builder, since basic solutions and concepts have already been
determined (The American Institute of Architects et al. 2003), however,
it can give the client greater control of projects. In the turnkey
method, by contrast, the client simply provides requirements for the
final product, and then requires the contractor to complete the design
and construction. In this contract arrangement, the client can leave
most of the design responsibilities to the design-builder, but he may
lose control of the project and does not obtain the project as required
(Huse 2002). Every DB operational variation has its own strengths and
weaknesses. When selecting DB operational variations, clients should,
therefore, balance trade-offs and take multiple variables into
consideration.
To an inexperienced client, selecting an appropriate operational
variation is more difficult than other issues (Janssens 1991). This is
because the client should neither provide too much design solution, as
it may limit the design-builder's innovation to the design process;
nor provide too little because it may impose unnecessary expenses to the
potential design-builders and prevent the client from obtaining the
satisfactory design solutions. A suitable DB operational variation may
lie between these parameters, wherein the design work has been developed
adequately for project tendering (Harris III, Mccaffer 1995). In the
construction field, although there has been a large amount of research
on design-build, few, if any, systematic studies focus on the selection
process of DB operational variations. The current paper attempts to fill
this research gap.
In the construction industry of the People's Republic of China
(PRC), selecting an appropriate DB operational variation poses
challenges to many clients. The DB market in the PRC is still immature,
and most of clients and DB contractors remain unfamiliar with the
delivery process of different DB operational variations (Cao, Yao 2009;
Liu 2010; Meng 2010). It is believed that the selection of DB
operational variations constitutes obstacles to the application of DB
system in China (Xia, Chan 2008). The primary purpose of this paper
attempts to identify the selection criteria for DB operational
variations in the PRC. With the identified criteria, clients can
evaluate the suitability of each DB variation accordingly. A selection
model can be ultimately developed in the future based on the findings of
the current study.
2. Literature review
When a client decides to deliver his project by DB method, an
important step forward is to determine which operational variation of DB
is the most appropriate for meeting his needs (Beard et al. 2001). Even
though the client can leave most of responsibilities/tasks to a
successful design-builder in a single DB contract, he should still
prepare the DB enquiry and decide how much design work should undertake
before engaging a design-builder (Janssens 1991).
A number of studies have been undertaken on the DB system
(Molenaar, Songer 1998; Alhazmi, McCaffer 2000; Chan et al. 2000;
Kumaraswamy, Dissanayaka 2001; Chang, Ive 2002; Luu et al. 2005;
Migliaccio, Shrestha 2009; Asmar et al. 2010). However, there are
limited studies focusing on the selection of DB operational variations.
Janssens (1991) was one of the first researchers to look into this
topic. He categorized the variables, which influence the choice of DB
operational variations, into those relating to design, cost, time and
other particular circumstances. The variation that suits all
circumstantial variables will be selected as the most appropriate method
for each proposed project. This method has its shortcoming because in
real-life projects, it is rather unlikely that all the prescribed
requirements can be met.
Beard et al. (2001) listed three basic operational variations of
design-build (direct design-build, design criteria design-build, and
preliminary design-build) and gave detailed explanations of how the
choice of these variations may affect a client's project. They
asserted that selection of suitable operational variations mainly
depends on client's decisions on (1) whether to define his needs by
resources within its organization or outside its organization and (2)
when the needs or problem-to-be-solved are sufficient to hand over to a
contracted entity. Although Beard et al. (2001) gave detailed
introduction of each variation; no practical methods or tools were
provided for the selection of different operational variations.
The U. S. Federal Highway Administration (2006) advocated that
after choosing design-build contracting to deliver a particular project,
contracting agencies must decide appropriate level of preliminary design
to initiate the design-build contract. This decision is influenced by
the nature and complexity of the project, the needs of prospective teams
to understand the requirements of the clients, the potential risks of
the proposed project, and the comfort level for design-builder to
develop the scope of the project. Although the importance of selecting
DB operational variations was emphasized, the Federal Highway
Administration (2006) did not provide practical methods to determine the
appropriate level of preliminary design in DB request for proposals.
In order to provide a clearer direction for the selection of DB
operational variations, more research work is required. According to Luu
et al. (2005), the selection process can be divided into two consecutive
stages, namely, selection criteria formulation and procurement
selection. The formulation of selection criteria is of great importance
to the selection process because an appropriate procurement selection
model depends largely on prudent identification of selection criteria to
reflect clients' and project objectives (Masterman, Gameson 1994).
In addition, considering the unique conditions of the PRC DB market, in
which most of clients remain unfamiliar with the DB system, a set of
selection criteria could provide clients with better insights to
understand and compare different DB operational variations.
In order to facilitate the selection of DB operational variations
in the PRC, a specific set of selection criteria is urgently required.
This paper focuses on identifying the most important selection criteria
for different DB operational variations in the PRC. Findings of the
current study will provide a solid base for future research to establish
a decision model for selecting the best DB operational variation under a
given set of circumstances.
3. Research methodology--the Delphi technique
The Delphi method is designed to obtain the most reliable consensus
of a group of experts by a series of intensive questionnaires
interspersed with controlled opinion feedback, and with results of each
round being fed into the next round (Linstone, Turoff 1975; Chan et al.
2001a). It has proven to be a popular and reliable technique for
decision making (Okoli, Pawlowski 2004; Landeta 2006). It is best suited
in fields where there are no adequate historical data for research
purpose (Skulmoski et al. 2007). Considering the immaturity of DB market
in China, the Delphi technique will serve as an appropriate
consensus-reaching method for the research topic in this paper.
The Delphi method typically involves the selection of suitable
experts, development of appropriate questions, and analysis of their
answers (Cabaniss 2002). The original Delphi procedures have three
features: (1) anonymous response; (2) iteration and controlled feedback;
(3) statistical group responses (Adnan, Morledge 2003). The number of
rounds, in general, varies between two and seven, and the majority of
the studies have used three rounds (Schmidt 1997; Rowe, Wright 1999;
Adnan, Morledge 2003). According to Ludwig (1997), the majority of
Delphi studies have used between 15-20 respondents. Moreover, with a
homogeneous group of experts, good results can be obtained even with a
panel as small as 10-15 individuals (Adler, Ziglio 1996).
The Delphi method used in this research was composed of three
rounds with 20 experts. All the experts have sufficient DB experience
and knowledge (most of them take senior management positions in the
relevant organizations). It is believed that with the careful selection
of these Delphi experts, the opinions solicited from them in the Delphi
questionnaire survey will provide reliable results for the research
purpose. In Round 1, experts were asked to list at least five criteria
for the selection of DB operational variations. All the experts
completed Round 1 questionnaire survey. In Round 2, experts were
provided with the consolidated results from round 1 and were required to
rate all the criteria based on a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate the
importance of each criterion. Seventeen experts completed the Round 2
questionnaire survey. In Round 3, experts were asked to reconsider their
ratings of each criterion in the light of consolidated results of round
2. Finally, 17 experts completed the round 3 of the Delphi questionnaire
survey.
The questionnaires in each round are as follows:
-Questionnaire 1: Please list at least five selection criteria for
DB operational variations;
-Questionnaire 2: Please give ratings to the selection criteria
according to their importance;
-Questionnaire 3: Please re-rate the selection criteria in the
light of the results from round 2.
4. Identification of selection criteria for DB variations
4.1. Selection of expert panel
One of the most important considerations when carrying out a Delphi
study is the identification and selection of potential members to
constitute the panel of experts (Ludwing 1997; Stone, Busby 1996). The
selection of members or panelists is important because the validity of
the study is directly related to this selection process. In each Delphi
study, the knowledge and expertise of each panelist must be relevant to
questions posed by researchers (Dawson, Brucker 2001). In this Delphi
survey, the researcher attempts to identify all the panelists who are
knowledgeable or have the practical engagement in the DB field. The
selection criteria for Delphi experts were devised based on previous
Delphi studies on the similar research fields (Chan et al. 2001a;
Manoliadis et al. 2006; Yeung et al. 2007). The following three
selection criteria were adopted in order to identify eligible
participants for this study:
(1) Having extensive working experience in the DB projects in the
PRC,
(2) Having direct involvement in the management of DB projects, and
(3) Having sound knowledge of the DB operational variations.
Invitation letters were e-mailed to 31 potential panelists as to
explore their availability to participate in this study. These experts
were identified from the address available from government offices,
industry associations, universities, and through personal contacts. In
order to obtain the most valuable opinions, the practitioners should
have more than 5 years hands-on working experience in the DB field, and
the academics should have publications related to design-build. Finally,
20 experts who meet all the selection criteria agreed to attend the
Delphi survey after the first contact. A list of the panel members and
their types of occupations are shown in Table 1 (experts names and their
organizations are not reported to respect their anonymity).
The selected experts represent a wide spectrum of construction
professionals in the PRC and provide a balanced view for the Delphi
study. Most of the experts have sufficient experience and expertise in
DB projects. Table 2 shows the respondent classifications by years
working in the construction industry and the DB field.
All the experts have the management experience of DB projects.
Furthermore, most of the experts hold senior positions in their
organizations. The respondents' job positions/titles are provided
in Table 3.
The experts' sufficient working experience and sound knowledge
of DB project management increase the validity of this Delphi research.
4.2. Three rounds of Delphi questionnaires survey: results and
analysis
Round 1: Listing the selection criterion for DB operational
variations
The first round of the Delphi questionnaire survey is conducted as
the exploration process and is of crucial importance. After the
completion of first round survey, the criteria suggested by the 20
experts were carefully analyzed and a list of criteria was formed. Those
criteria, which conveyed similar meanings, were combined and rephrased.
Considering the fact that the first round stage is served as the
exploration process and the research topic is relatively new to the
experts, all the 15 criteria obtained in this stage remain for the next
round survey. Table 4 shows all the criteria proposed by experts in the
round one survey.
Round 2: Ratings obtained from experts
The purpose of the second round Delphi survey is to begin the
process of building the consensus among the panelists regarding the
importance of each selection criterion. A list of 15 criteria with their
explanations and experts-frequency was provided to experts for their
reference. Finally 17 experts returned the questionnaires.
At this stage, a 5-point Likert rating scale was used, which ranges
from 1--not important, 2--somewhat important, 3--important, 4--very
important, and 5--extremely important or essential. The 1-5 ordinal
scale is frequently used in Delphi research. Respondents specify their
level of agreement to a statement when responding to a questionnaire
item (Dukes 2005). The mean rating for each criterion was computed to
indicate the degree of its importance. In this research, mean score of
3.0 was adopted as a cut-off point. Only the criteria regarded as
IMPORTANT will remain for the re-evaluation in round 3. Table 5 shows
the results of round 2 of the Delphi questionnaire survey.
The Pearson correlation matrix for the data set is given in Table
6. Inspection of the correlation matrix reveals that the top eight
selection criteria are not highly correlated with each other at 5%
significance level (even most of them are insignificantly correlated
with each other). This provides an adequate basis for proceeding to the
next round of Delphi survey on these selection criteria.
To measure the degree of agreement between the panel experts on the
ordered list by mean rankings, the Kendall's Coefficient of
Concordance (W) was calculated with the aid of the SPSS software. The
Kendall's Coeffcient of Concordance indicates the degree of
agreement between the panel members on the ordered list by mean ranks by
taking into account the variations between the rankings. Table 5 also
shows that the Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W) for the
rankings of top eight criteria was 0.197, which was statistically
significant at 1%. The null hypothesis that the respondent's
ratings within the group are unrelated to each other would have to be
rejected. Therefore, it can be concluded that a significant amount of
agreement among the respondents of panel experts has been found.
Round 3: Re-assessing the selection criteria
In Round 3, the questionnaire survey was concerned with the
re-examination of the importance of each criterion in the light of the
overall panel response in Round 2. Therefore it moves the experts
towards a consensus of opinion. Finally, 17 experts returned their
completed questionnaire.
Most experts reconsidered their evaluation and made adjustments to
their ratings. The results of the statistical summary are provided in
Table 7. In this final round, seven criteria pass the cut-off point.
Tables 6 and 7 show that there is no change in the order of the top
four criteria, which are availability competent design-builders,
client's DB capabilities, project complexity and client's
control of the project. 'Early commencement & short
duration' changed from sixth rank to the fifth rank; 'Early
cost establishment' failed to pass the importance evaluation and it
was excluded from the final list of selection criteria. The
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W) was also calculated with
the aid of the SPSS software to measure the degree of agreement among
the panel members. It reveals that the consistency of the experts'
rankings for the top seven selection criteria was improved by 52.8%,
which was also statistically significant at 1% level.
The Pearson correlation matrix as indicated in Table 8 manifests
that the top seven selection criteria are not highly correlated with
each other at 5% significance level (even most of them are
insignificantly correlated with each other). It indicates that these
competences are independent with each other, and they are not likely to
have any multiplier effect between them. Finally, these seven criteria
are adopted as the key criteria for the selection of DB operational
variations.
5. Discussion
5.1. Operational variations of design-build in China
In the construction market of the PRC, the main DB operational
variations include develop-and-construction, novation DB, enhanced DB,
traditional DB and Turnkey method (Xia, Chan 2008). For most clients,
selecting the appropriate operational variations of the DB system is
never an easy task.
Develop-and-construction is shorthand for "develop the detail
from the employer's design and construct the works" (Janssens
1991). Since the client or his consultants undertake most of the design
work, it will limit the design-builder's innovation input and the
selection of design-builders tends to be price-oriented (The American
Institute of Architects et al. 2003). Although the
develop-and-construction is not favored by design-builders (Akintoye
1994), many owners take it a hybrid system to take advantages of
design-build and the traditional design-bid-build method. It is widely
used in the PRC DB market.
In novation DB, a successful design-builder is required to employ
the employer's consultants to complete the design work in the
post-contract stage. The design-builder accepts the innovated
consultants in order to maintain the consistency of the design work. But
the more design work the design-builder takes, the more likely he or she
will decline such arrangement because it restricts design-builder's
innovation input. In 'enhanced design-build', the
design-builder is contractually responsible for design development,
working details and construction work. It is an emerging delivery
system, which has attracted much enthusiasm in Hong Kong (Chan 2000).
The enhanced DB gives the owner greater control, while preserving the
time saving advantages of the DB system.
In traditional design-build, the design-builder takes full
responsibility for all the design and construction. In the turnkey
method, the contractor provides everything including commission and
handover after the construction. The term 'turnkey' and its
concept have been widely accepted in the industry. As one of the basic
DB operational variations, the turnkey method is traditionally applied
to major industrial projects (Janssens 1991).
To select an appropriate operational variation of DB, clients
should not simply leave all the design and construction work to the
design-builder because they may lose control of the projects and may not
get the projects as required. At the same time, it is also not wise to
provide overly detailed design and specification, leaving little room
for the design-builder's innovative design. The selection criteria
identified in this study provide clients with perspectives to understand
and examine different operational variations.
5.2. The selection criteria of DB operational variations
The final outcome of this paper is the identification of seven
selection criteria for DB operational variations in the construction
market of the PRC. In order to ensure the success of DB projects,
clients and their consultants should closely examine these criteria to
select the appropriate operational variation. It should be added that
the Delphi method, by its inherent nature, serves as a self-validating
mechanism because panel experts are given chances to re-assess their
scores with reference to the consolidated mean scores assessed by other
experts. By using the Delphi method, the maximum amount of unbiased and
objective information can be obtained from the experts.
Availability of competent design-builders
The competence of design-builders is critical to the success of DB
projects (Chan et al. 2001b; Ling et al. 2004). When selecting the DB
operational variations, owners have to investigate the availability of
competent design-builders, and the DB projects should be under the
control of experienced design-builders that possess all the necessary
ability to combine both design and construction functions and
coordinates various building professionals for the project (Molenaar,
Songer 1998; Mo, Ng 1997; Pearson, Skues 1999; Leung 1999). In addition,
the more work left to the design-builder (such as in the turnkey
method), the higher requirements for design-builder's capabilities.
Therefore, when there are a large number of competent design-builders in
the construction market, owners can possibly consider turnkey or
traditional DB as applicable options.
The DB capabilities of clients
The client plays an important role in contributing to the success
of construction projects (Alinaitwe 2008). In DB projects, although the
client may leave most of the project responsibilities to design-builders
(such as in the turnkey method), he should still possess DB competences
to deliver the DB project smoothly. In particular, owners should have
the capability to decide on the optimal level of design completion, to
review the design solutions proposed by design-builders, and to install
effective monitoring and approval mechanisms for design changes (Dea kin
1999; Pearson, Skues 1999; Ling, Liu 2004). In addition to the design
capabilities, owners should clearly define project scope and objectives;
have sufficient staff or consultant teams, and have similar DB
experience to ensure the success of DB projects (Songer, Molenaar 1997;
Ling, Liu 2004; Lam et al. 2008). In general, the requirements for
clients' DB capabilities increase when DB operational variations
move from develop-and-construction to turnkey method. In the selection
of DB operational variations, clients should therefore, evaluate their
DB competences objectively in order to have a firm control the DB
projects.
Project complexity
Project complexity is regarded as the most important project
characteristics that affect the selection of DB operational variations.
It is generally accepted that the operational variations, in which the
design-builder under-takes most of the project definition and design
work, are malleable for projects of high to medium complexity (Beard et
al. 2001). Although the concept of complexity is not entirely clear
(Williams 1999), the importance of the complexity to the project
management process is widely acknowledged (Baccarini 1996). Many
empirical studies in the construction field have found that project
complexity affects project outcomes in various ways (Akintoye 2000;
Doyle, Hughes 2000; Tatikonda, Rosenthal 2000; Austin et al. 2002; Chan
et al. 2004). In large or complex projects, it is applicable to reach
out immediately to a total facility provider to develop a facility
program, because such projects usually call for multiple contracts,
sub-contractors, suppliers, outside agencies, and complex coordination
systems.
Owner's requirements
The following three selection criteria, namely, owner's
control of the project, early commencement & short duration, and
reduced responsibility, clearly reflect the owner's expectations
toward the DB delivery system. As the traditional design-bid-build
delivery method is inadequate to meet the demands and challenges of the
changing world, more and more clients resort to the DB operational
variations due to their evident advantages, such as single-point
responsibility, shortening time, pushing contractors to upgrade
technology (Ndekugri, Turner 1994; Songer, Molenaar 1997; Konchar,
Sanvido 1998). However, when selecting DB operational variations, it
should be kept in mind that every DB operational variation has its own
strengths and weaknesses, and the owner has to face trade-offs when
choosing the appropriate one. For example, in the turnkey method, the
client can greatly reduce his project responsibility or involvement, but
at the same time, he will have less control of the project.
Clear definition of projects
The clear end user's requirement means that the owner should
have a clear conception of the building functions at the early stage.
Many studies propose that the client should develop a clear project
definition, owner's requirements, and client's brief in DB
projects (Mo, Ng 1997; Molenaar, Songer 1998; Leung 1999; Pearson, Skues
1999; Chan et al. 2001b). If the owner is very clear about the
project's goals, scope, and expected outcome, then the DB system
will work to the owner's benefit; otherwise, it can be very costly
if the information provided by the owner to the contractor at the outset
of the design build process is incorrect (Mogaibel 1999).
5.3. Validation of the selection criteria
The identification of selection criteria is of great importance to
the selection of DB operational variations. In order to set up a
comprehensive, objective, reliable and practical framework for the
selection of DB operational variations in the future research study, the
seven identified selection criteria should be validated to ascertain
that they are appropriate to measure the performance of every DB
operational variation.
Five structured interviews were conducted with five DB project
participants who had hands-on experience in running DB projects in the
construction industry of China to collect their views on the identified
criteria. All interviewees are at Directorate grade and each has more
than 15 years of experience in the construction industry. Each of them
also has experience in running three or more DB projects in China; the
profiles of the interviewees are provided in Table 9.
The seven criteria were presented to the interviewees. The
processes of the three round Delphi questionnaire survey were also
explained. The interviewees were requested to examine the
appropriateness of the seven identified selection criteria together with
their individual rankings. In addition, they were encouraged to propose
other variables that should be taken into consideration when making the
similar decisions.
In general, although minor variation exists on the ranking of
selection criteria, most of the interviewees agreed that the seven
selection criteria are appropriate to measure the performance of DB
operational variations in China. Expert 3 proposed that the factor of
relationship between owners and DB contractors should be also considered
because when there is a lack of mutual trust between owners and DB
contractors; owners tend to undertake more pre-construction work
themselves before leaving the projects to design-builders. This factor
was once proposed by the Delphi experts in the first round of the Delphi
survey. However, it did not pass the importance evaluation in the second
round (with the mean score lower than 3.0). Finally, the seven selection
criteria were consolidated and adopted for the future research study.
5.4. Application of the section criteria
The selection of DB operational variations is a multi-criteria
decision making process that poses challenge to many clients. The
current research study recommends seven most important selection
criteria and their rankings. The research findings will facilitate DB
clients to evaluate different DB projects and select the appropriate DB
operational variation. This is illustrated by the following two cases.
The Jin Mao Tower is a typical DB project of
develop-and-construction. It is an 88-story landmark skyscraper in
Lujiazui area of the Pudong district of Shanghai, the People's
Republic of China. Similar to most of the DB owners in China, the China
Shanghai Foreign Trade Center Co., Ltd was inexperienced with DB system
but wanted to have firm control of this project. Additionally, the owner
did not have clear definition of the final project at the early stage.
At the same time, there were not enough competent design-builders in the
PRC back then. Given the characteristics of this project, the owner was
therefore recommended to complete the majority of the design work before
leaving the project to the successful design-builder. In the real
practice, the owner employed Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) as the
design consultant based on its concept design through international open
bidding. SOM then developed the design work to design development stage.
After the tendering stage, the successful DB contractor, Shanghai
Construction Group, was contractually responsible for the remaining
working drawing and all the construction work. This contract arrangement
gave the owner greater control of the project while still preserving the
time saving advantages of design-build system.
Another oil storage project, located in Guangdong province,
provided a vivid example of Turnkey method. This project is owned by
Oiltanking Daya Bay Co., Ltd, an internationally service provider for
liquid bulk storage and logistics. It has sufficient experience with DB
system and has clear definition it required. At the same time, there is
adequate supply of competent design-builders in the Petroleum and
Chemistry industries where the DB system has been adopted for more than
twenty years. Therefore the owner may leave most of the project design
to the successful design-builder at the early stage of the project. In
this project, the successful DB contractor, Chengda Engineering
Corporation of China--one of the 200 largest international engineering
companies was responsible for the preliminary design, detailed design,
facility procurement and construction. The owner purchased almost the
whole facility from the contractor.
5.5. Limitation of the current study and future research work
The selection of DB operational variation is a multi-criteria
decision-making process. The selection criteria identified in this
research provide perspectives to evaluate different DB operational
variations. However, it is worth noting that some of the identified
criteria are still broad, vague concept (such as the project
complexity). Different assessors may have their own semantic
interpretation on each selection criterion. Thus it is desirable to
identify suitable quantitative interpretations/indicators for each
criterion and provides objective evaluation results based on
quantitative evidence in the future. In addition, it is stressed that
the scoring of selection criteria is on relative importance, not on
actual importance. A subjective assessment of the scoring results is
made to analyze the perceived relative importance of selection criteria.
The fact that this subjective assessment does not provide any absolute
value on the importance is recognized. Therefore other methods for
determining the rankings of the selection criteria such as AHP,
non-parametric Kendall Rank, etc) may be adopted in future research
study. It is expected that the final selection model will help owners
select the appropriate DB operational variations and promote the
application of the DB system in the construction market of China. Given
that the selection of DB operational variations is a problem not only in
China, further research should be conducted in other countries to seek
their similarities and differences for international comparisons.
6. Conclusions
The DB system has been widely used oversees, however it has not
gained popularity in the PRC. The selection of DB operational variations
is important to the success of DB projects but also poses difficulty to
the clients. The focal point of this analysis is to develop the
selection criteria for DB operational variations in the construction
market of the PRC. Seven selection criteria have been identified in this
study. The finding indicates that a client should comprehensively
evaluate the availability of design-builders in the market, his DB
capabilities and project requirements, and project characteristics in
order to choose the appropriate DB operational variation. These findings
can furnish stakeholders, not only the clients, with perspectives to
understand and compare the different operational variations of DB
system. It also deepens the current body of knowledge and serves as an
acceleration of the development in this filed.
In identifying and developing a practical set of selection criteria
for DB operational variations, the Delphi method serves as a
self-validating mechanism and provides a valuable framework for tapping
experts' knowledge. This is especially true when there are very few
studies available in this field. It yielded both insight and structure
to assess different DB variations.
doi: 10.3846/13923730.2012.657417
Acknowledgement
The work described in this paper was fully supported by the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University. This paper forms part of the research study
of the first author entitled "The selection of design-build
operational variations in the People's Republic of China using
Delphi method and fuzzy set theory", from which other deliverables
have been produced with different objectives/scope but sharing common
background and methodology.
References
Adler, M.; Ziglio, E. 1996. Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi
method and its application to social policy and public health. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publisher. 252 p.
Adnan, H.; Morledge, R. 2003. Application of Delphi method on
critical success factors in joint venture projects in the Malaysian
construction industry, in C. Egbu, M. Tong (Eds.). 1st Scottish
Conference for Postgraduate Researchers of the Built and Natural
Environment, 17-19 November, 2003, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Glasgow
Caledonian University, 41-49.
Akintoye, A. 1994. Design and build: a survey of construction
contractors' views, Construction Management and Economics 12(2):
155-163. http://dx.doi.org/1C1080/01446199400000021
Akintoye, A. 2000. Analysis of factors influencing project cost
estimating practice, Construction Management and Economics 18(1): 77-89.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461900370979
Alhazmi, T.; McCaffer, R. 2000. Project procurement system
selection model, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE
126(3): 176-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)
126:3(176)
Alinaitwe, H. M. 2008. An assessment of client's performance
in having an efficient building progress in Uganda, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 14(2): 73-78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.1
Asmar, M. El.; Lotfallah, W.; Whited, G.; Hanna, A. S. 2010.
Quantitative methods for design-build team selection, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 136(8): 904-912.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000194
Austin, S.; Newton, A.; Steele, J.; Waskett, P. 2002. Modelling and
managing project complexity, International Journal of Project Management
20(3): 191-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00068-0
Baccarini, D. 1996. The concept of project complexity-a review,
International Journal of Project Management 14(4): 201-204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3
Beard, J. L.; Loulakis, S. R. M. C.; Wundram, E. C. 2001.
Design-build: Planning through development. USA: McGraw-Hill. 543 p.
Cabaniss, K. 2002. Computer-related technology use by counselors in
the new millennium: A Delphi study, Journal of Technology in Counseling
2(2): 3-34.
Cao, J. M.; Yao, Y. 2009. Study and suggestions on developing EPC
by design enterprises, China Investigation and Design 8: 30-33.
Chan, A. P. C. 2000. Evaluation of enhanced design and build
system--a case study of hospital project, Construction Management and
Economics 18(7): 863-871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461900433140
Chan, A. P. C.; Yung, E. H. K.; Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Dept. of Building and Real Estate. 2000. Procurement selection model for
Hong Kong. Research Monograph. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic
University. 143 p.
Chan, A. P. C.; Yung, E. H. K.; Lam, P. T. I.; Tam, C. M.; Cheung,
S. O. 2001a. Application of Delphi method in selection of procurement
systems for construction projects, Construction Management and Economics
19(7): 699-718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190110066128
Chan, A. P. C.; Ho, D. C. K.; Tam, C. M. 2001b. Design and build
project success factors: Multivariate analysis, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management ASCE 127(2): 93-100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339364(2001)127:2(93)
Chan, A. P. C.; Scott, D.; Chan, A. P. L. 2004. Factors Affecting
the Success of a Construction Project, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management ASCE 130(1): 153-155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339364(2004)130:1(153)
Chang, C.-Y.; Ive, G. 2002. Rethinking the multi-attribute utility
approach based procurement route selection technique, Construction
Management and Economics 20(3): 275-284.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190110117608
CIOB 1988. Code of Estimating Practice, Supplement No. 2: Design
and Build. UK: The Gresham Press. 40 p.
Dawson, M. T.; Brucker, P. S. 2001. The utility of Delphi method in
MFT research, The American Journal of Family Therapy 29(2): 125-140.
Deakin, P. 1999. Client's local experience on design and build
projects, in Seminar Proceedings on Design and Build Procurement System,
14 January, 1999, Hong Kong, 11-15.
Doyle, A.; Hughes, W. 2000. The influence of project complexity on
estimating accuracy, in Proc. of the 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8
September, 2000, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK. Ed. by A. Akintoye.
Association of Researches in Construction Management, vol. 2, 623-634.
Dukes, K. A. 2005. Likert Scale, in Encyclopedia of Biostatistics.
Stoneham, MA, USA.
Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of
Transportation 2006. Design-build Effectiveness Study [cited Apr 19,
2010]. Available from Internet: <http://www.
mwa.dot.gov/reports/designbuild/designbuild0.htm>.
Gransberg, D. D.; Koch, J. E.; Molenaar, K. R. 2006. Preparing for
design-build projects: A primer for owners, engineers, and contractors.
USA: ASCE Press. 296 p.
Hale, D. R.; Shrestha, P. P.; Gibson, Jr., G. E.; Migliaccio, G. C.
2009. Empirical comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project
delivery methods, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
ASCE 135(7): 559-587.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000017
Haque, M. E.; Alkaabi, N.; Arosha, D. S. 2001. Selection of a right
project delivery system: a tabular knowledge base approach, in Proc. of
the 3rd International Conference on Construction Project Management,
29-30 March, 2001, Singapore, 471-480.
Harris III, F.; Mccaffer, R. 1995. Modern construction management.
4th ed. Oxford: BSP Professional Books. 592 p.
Huse, J. A. 2002. Understanding & negotiating Turnkey Epc. 2nd
ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. 976 p.
Janssens, D. E. L. 1991. Design/Build: explained (Building &
Surveying). London: Macmillan Education Ltd. 240 p.
Konchar, M.; Sanvido, V. 1998. Comparison of U.S. project delivery
systems, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 124(6):
435-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339364(1998)124:6(435)
Kumaaswamy, M. M.; Dissanayaka, S. M. 2001. Developing a decision
support system for building project procurement, Building and
Environment 36(3): 337-349.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00011-1
Lam, E. W. M.; Chan, A. P. C.; Chan, D. W. M. 2008. Determinants of
successful design-build projects, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management ASCE 134(5): 333-341.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008) 134:5(333)
Landeta, J. 2006. Current validity of the Delphi method in social
sciences, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73(5): 467-482.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002
Leung, K. S. 1999. Characteristics of design and build projects, in
Seminar Proceedings on Design and Build Procurement System, 14 January,
1999, Hong Kong, 1-10.
Ling, F. Y. Y.; Liu, M. 2004. Using neural network to predict
performance of design-build projects in Singapore, Building and
Environment 39(10): 1263-1274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.02.008
Ling, F. Y. Y.; Chan, S.-L.; Chong, E.; Ee, L. P. 2004. Predicting
performance of design-build and design-bid-build projects, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 130(1): 75-83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004) 130:1(75)
Linstone, H. A.; Turoff, M. (Eds.). 1975. The Delphi method:
Techniques and applications. USA: Addison-Wesley, MA. 621 p.
Liu, Y. X. 2010. Reports on the fifth general council of the China
investigation and design association, China Investigation and Design 8:
22-25.
Ludwig, B. 1997. Predicting the future: Have you considered using
Delphi methodology? Journal of Extension 35(5): 1-4.
Luu, D. T.; Ng, S. T.; Chen, S. E. 2005. Formulating procurement
selection criteria through case-based reasoning approach, Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering ASCE 19(3): 269-276.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801 (2005)19:3(269)
Masterman, J. W. E. 2002. Introduction to building procurement
systems. 2nd ed. London and New York: Taylor & Francis. 256 p.
Masterman, J. W. E.; Gameson, A. R. 1994. The selection of building
procurement systems by client organizations, in R. M. Skitmore, M. Betts
(Eds.). Proc. of the 10th Annual ARCOM Conference, 14-16 September,
1994, Loughborough University of Technology, UK, 650-659.
Manoliadis, O.; Tsolas, I.; Nakou, A. 2006. Sustainable
construction and drivers of change in Greece: a Delphi study,
Construction Management and Economics 24(2): 113-120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190500204804
Meng, H. 2010. Major factors restricting enterprises of
architectural design from EPC, China Investigation and Design 8: 57-61.
Migliaccio, G. C.; Shrestha, P. P. 2009. Analysis of design-build
procurement activities durations for highway projects, in S. T.
Ariaratnam, E. M. Rojas (Eds). Proc. of the Construction Research
Congress "Building a Sustainable Future", 5-7 April, 2009,
Seattle, Washington, ASCE, 229-238.
Mo, J. K.; Ng, L.Y. 1997. Design and build procurement method in
Hong Kong--An overview, in CIB W92 Symposium on Procurement--A Key to
Innovation, 18-22 May, 1997, Montreal, Canada, 453-462.
Mogaibel, H. 1999. Project delivey systems of mining projects. CEM
600 Master of Engineering Report, King Fahd University of Petroleum and
Minerals, Saudi Arabia. 50 p.
Molenaar, K. R.; Songer, A. D. 1998. Model for public sector
design-build project selection, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management ASCE 124(6): 467-479.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998) 124:6(467)
Ndekugri, I.; Turner, A. 1994. Building procurement by design and
build approach, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE
120(2): 243-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)
120:2(243)
Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S. D. 2004. The Delphi method as a research
tool: an example, design considerations and applications, Information
& Management 42(1): 15-29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002
Park, M.; Ji, S.-H.; Lee, H.-S.; Kim, W. 2009. Strategies for
design-build in Korea Using System dynamics modeling, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 135(11): 1125-1137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000095
Pearson, M.; Skues, D. 1999. Control of projects implemented
through design and build contracts, in Seminar Proceedings on Design and
Build Procurement System, 14 January, 1999, Hong Kong, 49-60.
Rosner, J. M.; Thal Jr., A. E.; West, C. J. 2009. Analysis of the
design-build delivery method in air force construction projects, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 135(8): 710-717.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000029
Rowe, G.; Wright, G. 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting
tool: issues and analysis, International of Forecasting 15(4): 353-375.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7
Schmidt, R. C. 1997. Managing Delphi survey using nonparametric
statistical techniques, Decision Sciences 28(3): 763-774.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01330.x
Skulmoski, G. J.; Hartman, F. T.; Krahn, J. 2007. The Delphi method
for graduate research, Journal of Information Technology Education 6:
1-22.
Songer, A. D.; Molenaar, K. R. 1997. Project characteristics for
successful public-sector design-build, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management ASCE 123(1): 34-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1997) 123:1(34)
Stone, F. L.; Busby, D. M. 1996. The Delphi Method, in H. Sprenkle,
S. M. Moon (Eds.). Research methods in family therapy. New York:
Guildford, 469-484.
Tatikonda, M. V.; Rosenthal, S. R. 2000. Technology novelty,
project complexity, and product development project execution success: a
deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management 47(1): 74-87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.820727
The American Institute of Architects; Quatman II, G. W.; Dhar, R.
R. 2003. The Architect's Guide to Design-Build Services. New
Jersey: John Willey and Sons, Inc. Hoboken. 448 p.
Williams, T. M. 1999. The need for new paradigms for complex
projects, International Journal of Project Management 17(5): 269-273.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863 (98)00047-7
Xia, B.; Chan, A. P. C. 2008. The investigation of design-build
variants in the construction market of the People's Republic of
China (PRC), in The 1 International Conference on Construction in
Developing Countries "Advancing and Integrating Construction
Education, Research & Practice" (ICCIDC-I), 4-5 August, 2008,
Karachi, Pakistan, 384-391.
Yeung, J. F. Y.; Chan, A. P. C.; Chan, D. W. M.; Li, L. K. 2007.
Development of a partnering performance index (PPI) for construction
projects in Hong Kong: a Delphi study, Construction Management and
Economics 25(12): 1219-1237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190701598673
Bo Xia (1), Albert P. C. Chan (2)
(1) School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland
University of Technology,
(2) George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia
(2) Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
E-mails: (1)
[email protected]; (1)
[email protected]
(corresponding author); (2)
[email protected]
Received 05 May 2010; accepted 19 Jan. 2011
Bo XIA. Lecturer in the School of Civil Engineering and Built
Environment at the Queensland University of Technology. He got his PhD
degree in the Department of Building and Real Estate, the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University. His current research interests focus on
construction procurement and construction management.
Albert P. C. CHAN. Professor and Associate Head in the Department
of Building and Real Estate at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He
is also a Chartered Builder, Engineer, Project Manager, and Quantity
Surveyor by profession. His current research interests are in
construction management and economics, construction procurement and
partnering, construction safety, innovation in construction, project
management, and project success.
Table 1. List of the experts for the
Delphi study
Type of firm/department Number
Real estate developer 1
Government department 3
Design consultant company 3
Project management company 3
University 4
Construction company 6
Total 20
Table 2. Respondent classifications by years
in the construction industry and DB field
Years In construction In DB field
industry
0-5 5% 15%
6-10 30% 50%
11-20 30% 30%
20+ 35% 5%
Average (Years) 15 9
Table 3. The job positions of the experts
Job position Number
Chief engineer 1
Deputy chief engineer 2
Deputy general manager 2
Project manager 3
General director 1
Project management director 1
Academic 2
Engineer 2
Project management consultant 2
Director of research institute 2
Deputy division chief in government 2
Total 20
Table 4. Criteria provided by the panel of experts in round one
Delphi survey
Selection criteria for DB operational variations Experts
frequency
1. Availability of competent design-builders 90%
Are there many competent design-builders
in the construction market?
2. Owner' design-build capabilities 80%
Does the owner have sufficient DB
capabilities, such as rich DB
experience and adequate staff?
3. Project complexity 75%
Does the project have very high requirements
for construction method, project management,
etc?
4. Owner's control of project 70%
Does it enable the owner to have
more control of the project?
5. Reduced responsibility or involvement 55%
Does it reduce the owner's project
responsibility and involvement as much
as possible?
6. Early commencement & short duration 55%
Does it enable the owner to start projects
as soon as possible? Is the short
duration first priority?
7. Early cost-establish 40%
Dose it enable the owner to establish
the project cost as soon as possible?
8. Bid competition 35%
Does it increase the bidding competition?
Is the price-oriented or quality-based
method preferred?
9. Law & trade's tradition 30%
Is it allowed or preferred by the construction
laws and local tradition?
10. Reduced or controlled project variation 30%
Does it reduce the project variation?
Does it allow the owner have much project
variation?
11. Reduced risk 15%
Does it reduce owner's risk as much as possible?
Is the risk-aversion emphasized by the owner?
12. Clear end user's requirements 5%
Does the owner have clear project definition or
project requirement?
13. Peer relationship with contractor 5%
Does it promote better communication between
owner and design-builder?
14. The quality requirement of project 5%
Does it improve the project quality as much as
possible? Is the quality more emphasized?
15. Buildability of the construction 5%
Does it improve the buildability of project
as much as possible?
Table 5. The results of round 2 of the Delphi survey
Criteria for DB variations selection Mean Rank
rating
Availability of competent design-builders 4.44 1
Client's DB capabilities 3.87 2
Project complexity 3.81 3
Client's control of the project 3.41 4
Reduced responsibility or involvement 3.25 5
Early commencement & short duration 3.15 6
Early cost establishment 3.07 7
Clear end user's requirements 3.03 8
Notes: Number (n) = 17. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance
(W) = 0.197. Level of significance = 0.000
Table 6. The Pearson Correlations matrix among the top eight
selection criteria
Contractor Design Project Project
competence competence complexity control
Contractor 1 -.088 .302 -.217
competence
Client's DB 1 .372 .426
competence
Project scale 1 .314
& complexity
Client's project 1
control
Reduced
responsibility
Short duration
Early cost
establishment
Clear end user's
requirements
Reduced Short Early cost
responsibility duration establishment
Contractor -.174 -.009 .091
competence
Client's DB -.380 .112 .008
competence
Project scale -.307 .010 .109
& complexity
Client's project -.425 -.294 -.050
control
Reduced 1 .306 .386
responsibility
Short duration 1 .172
Early cost 1
establishment
Clear end user's
requirements
Clear
requirements
Contractor -.318
competence
Client's DB -.311
competence
Project scale -.546 *
& complexity
Client's project -.082
control
Reduced .499 *
responsibility
Short duration .241
Early cost .436
establishment
Clear end user's 1
requirements
Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 7. The results of round 3 of the Delphi survey
Criteria for DB variations selection Mean Rank
rating
Availability of competent design-builders 4.53 1
Client's DB capability 3.97 2
Project complexity 3.75 3
Client's control of the project 3.50 4
Early commencement & short duration 3.37 5
Reduced responsibility or involvement 3.25 6
Clear end user's requirements 3.12 7
Early cost establishment 2.93 8
Notes: Number (n) = 17. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance
(W) = 0.301. Level of significance = 0.000
Table 8. Correlations matrix among the top eight selection criteria
Contractor Design Project Project
competence competence complexity control
Contractor's 1 -.142 .316 -.275
competence
Client's DB 1 .384 .468
capability
Project scale 1 .227
& complexity
Client's 1
project control
Short duration
Reduced
responsibility
Clear end user's
requirements
Short Reduced Clear
duration responsibility requirements
Contractor's -.149 -.026 -.516 *
competence
Client's DB .143 -.445 -.335
capability
Project scale -.057 .202 -.505 *
& complexity
Client's -.182 -.428 -.074
project control
Short duration 1 -.027 .093
Reduced 1 .197
responsibility
Clear end user's 1
requirements
Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 9. Interviewees' details for validating selection criteria
for DB operational variations
No. Position Organization Role Working
years in
construction
1 Senior Construction Consultant
project group company 35
manager
2 General Construction Main
manager engineering contractor 16
company
3 General Project Owner
director management consultant 24
company
4 Construction University Owner
division 22
chief
5 Project Real estate Owner
manager developer 15
No. Position Working
years in
DB field
1 Senior
project
manager 22
2 General
manager 9
3 General
director 17
4 Construction
division
chief 15
5 Project
manager 7
