Franz, B; Molenaar, K R and Roberts, B A M (2020) Revisiting project delivery system performance from 1998 to 2018. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(9): 04020100, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a study to compare the performance of design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager at risk (CMR), and design-build (DB) project delivery systems in the US building construction industry. By leveraging verified data from 212 projects, a best subset analysis was used to generate regression models that explain the greatest amount of variance in five measures of project performance: unit cost, cost growth, schedule growth, construction speed, and delivery speed. From these regression models, the average of the predicted project performance was calculated for each delivery system when holding all other variables constant. The results show that, on average, projects with a DB delivery system are delivered faster and with lower cost and schedule growth than projects structured as CMR or DBB. In addition, the completed unit cost of DB projects is comparable to DBB and slightly less than CMR projects. These results are generally consistent with findings from seminal articles published in the late 1990s, as well as more recent works that also compared performance across delivery systems. However, the modeling does indicate that, except for delivery speed, the gap in performance between DBB, CMR, and DB has narrowed over time. This research provides an updated benchmark for the performance of the most commonly used project delivery systems, which has value to owners seeking guidance when making strategic decisions in structuring their projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction manager at risk; cost performance; design-build; project delivery methods; regression modeling; schedule performance |
| Index terms: | schedule performance, building construction, regression modelling, cost performance, unit cost, regression model, variance, owner, construction manager at risk, design-bid-build, project performance, schedule growth, modelling, project delivery |
| Subjects: | project delivery, financial and cost management, analytical methods, contractual arrangements, project management theory and practice, economics, statistical analysis, building construction, sociology, measurement and scaling, project controls |
| Topics: | Time Control, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Procurement, Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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