Farnsworth, C B; Warr, R O; Weidman, J E and Mark Hutchings, D (2016) Effects of CM/GC project delivery on managing process risk in transportation construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(3): 04015091, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Teams that deliver complex transportation construction projects need tools that manage risk and allow for successful delivery. Construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) project delivery is an alternative method that furnishes public agencies with an attractive option for delivering projects in a less adversarial and more constructive manner by involving the contractor during the design phase. This paper identifies the effects of CM/GC delivery on construction process risk. Owners, contractors, and design engineers with sizable CM/GC experience on transportation-related projects were surveyed to identify differences in the perception of CM/GC processes, especially compared to design-build and design-bid-build project delivery methods. The perceived benefits and disadvantages regarding quality, schedule, cost control, and collaboration/flexibility are discussed. The benefits include strategies for robust process risk management and successful project delivery, while the disadvantages expose barriers of implementation that must be overcome. Ultimately, this research identifies differences in how project teams value CM/GC processes with regard to minimizing construction process risk, thus enabling teams to more effectively facilitate unity and strengthen the CM/GC process.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; contract management; contracting; design/build; project delivery; project management; risk management |
| Index terms: | strategy, general contractor, contract management, agency, construction manager, cost control, construction project, collaboration, construction process, design-bid-build, construction team, owner, engineer, project team, project management, project delivery, option, implementation, risk management, design phase |
| Subjects: | practitioner, profession, risk assessment, contractual arrangements, professional practice, financial and cost management, project delivery, production management, project management theory and practice, contract management, management, sociology, decision analysis, building construction |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Contract Administration, Site Management, Organizational Design, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here