Riel, Paul E (2015) Campus planners' preferences for residence hall project delivery methods. EdD thesis, University of North Florida, USA.
Abstract
This research determined the preferred project delivery method utilized by campus planners when building student housing on a university campus. Four key performance indicators were also evaluated to determine if they influenced the campus planner to select a particular project delivery method. The four key performance indicators were: owner input, cost, safety, and on-time completion. Campus planners identified though the Society for Campus and University Planners (SCUP), were invited to participate in this survey research method. Five research questions were explored in this study. They were: 1. What is the preferred project delivery method (PDM) when building a residence hall on a college campus? 2. Do key performance indicators influence a campus planner’s choice of preferred project delivery method? 3. Does the preferred project delivery method differ by the number of beds? 4. Does the preferred project delivery method differ geographically? 5. Does the preferred project delivery method differ between public and private institutions? Based on the survey findings, analyzed using SPSS, sufficient information was garnered from the data to allow responses to the five research questions. In sum, there was a significant preference on the part of campus planners for the construction management at risk project delivery method when building student housing. This finding was consistent across regions and between public and private institutions. The design-bid-build project delivery method was the preferred approach when building student housing of less than 200 beds. Key performance indicators were shown to have little influence on the decision regarding which project delivery method to choose.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Cornelius, Luke M; Webb, Kristine; Jackson Jr, E Newton and Michelman, Jeffrey E |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | education; student housing; construction; project delivery methods; key performance indicators; business administration; management; operations; construction engineering; higher education |
| Index terms: | business administration, preference, survey, project delivery, owner, student housing, higher education, society, key performance indicator, construction engineering, planner, college campus, design-bid-build |
| Subjects: | communities and social development, educational institutions, business, project delivery, construction type, decision-making and reasoning, sociology, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, profession, engineering methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Education, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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