Grau, D; Cruz Rios, F and Sherman, R (2021) Project validation: A set-based and concurrent design approach to inform owner's authorization decision on complex projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(10): 04021132, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Strictly speaking, there is no way to have certainty of the outcomes or the value of decisions made early in a project. However, early decisions set the path to cost and schedule performance and influence life cycle costs. This study explored project validation as a novel set-based and concurrent design practice during the conceptual phase of complex projects. Because the construction literature obviates set-based design, a grounded theory method was leveraged to elicit a theoretical model that gave primacy to contextual and inductive evidence. The emerging theory guided the data collection, which included interviews, three expert workshops, and observations at validation sessions. Project validation aims at proving or disproving with null design whether the team can deliver a project that satisfies the owner's business case and scope within the owner's allowable constraints of costs, schedule, and acceptable risks. Also, it defines the basis of design and target costs and informs the owner's decision to authorize (go) or not to authorize (no-go) the project. As a departure from the existing literature rooted in point-based design and programming approaches, decisions on concurrent sets of cross-functional design alternatives are purposely delayed during project validation. In doing so, the accumulation of additional information will, later on, enable the team to make design decisions with a systems engineering and value-adding perspective that drives innovation. The results of this study contribute to the advancement of design theory methodology and project definition.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | complex project, design practice, workshop, owner, grounded theory, systems engineering, target cost, methodology, programming, validation, evidence, design decision, business case, interview, schedule performance, life cycle cost |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, sociology, project controls, design process, professional development, economics, research methods, design practice, theoretical framing, strategic project management, programming, construction type, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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