Bingham, E; Gibson, G E and Asmar, M E (2018) Measuring user perceptions of popular transportation project delivery methods using least significant difference intervals and multiple range tests. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(6): 04018033, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
One of the most critical decisions made by transportation project stakeholders is the choice of a project delivery method for their project. Delivery methods have been shown to significantly impact project cost and schedule. As the use of alternative project delivery methods increases, the perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages to using a particular method have matured. This paper reports on a national study of over 80 transportation owners and designers to measure their perceptions of the three most widely used delivery methods: design bid build (DBB), construction manager at risk (CMAR), and design build (DB). The study develops a list of factors that influence the selection of a delivery method, and then tests the most significant factors that lead to the selection of each individual method. Analyses using Fisher's least significant difference intervals and multiple range tests allow for the identification of specific correlations between the delivery method and motivating factors or project goals. The analyses show that delivery method selection is motivated primarily by project urgency, cost, and risk allocation. For the three main delivery methods of DBB, CMAR, and DB, motivation for their selection is primarily based on cost, risk allocation, and project urgency, respectively. User perceptions align with findings from literature in terms of schedule performance, but do not align in terms of cost performance. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by reporting on the most current motivating factors for the selection and use of the most popular delivery methods.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | schedule performance, design build, transportation project, project cost, motivation, body of knowledge, cost performance, owner, construction manager at risk, delivery method, designer, design-bid-build, risk allocation, project delivery |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, knowledge management, project delivery, psychology, profession, infrastructure and transport systems, project controls, delivery method, sociology, financial risk, economics |
| Topics: | Time Control, Human Resources, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Cost Management, Information Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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