Lahdenperä, P (2026) Design-build with a development phase: The underlying theory. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(4): 04026025, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This study focuses on a design-build (DB) procedure that exploits the related parties' (preconstruction) collaboration to improve the economic efficiency of construction projects. It is called design-build with a development phase (DBd). In the procedure, the owner and the selected contractor continue the development of the project solution in cooperation, adhering to the principle of benefit sharing, which is enabled by preagreed rules and the benchmark solution, formed as a result of requirement-based price-inclusive contractor selection where technical design is not included in the proposal; the formation of the final contract is a two-stage process, and a new owner decision is needed to enter the realization phase. More precisely, this study aims to discover and formulate a theory that underlies the DBd procedure that is a heuristic construct of the procedure's origin. For that, the DBd procedure was conceptualized by determining its key elements and their relationships, and by showing how a coherent whole is achieved by the elements' mutual interoperability. Therefore, the study contributes to the body of knowledge by crystallizing the DBd concept and its rationality. Even more importantly, the study eventually establishes the novel DBd procedure by combining consistent theoretical and practical views considering the earlier success of DBd in trial projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; construction project; design-build; development phase; infrastructure; joint development; project delivery systems; public procurement |
| Index terms: | interoperability, project delivery, owner, heuristic, contractor selection, efficiency, body of knowledge, cooperation, collaboration, construction project, rationality, proposal |
| Subjects: | project planning, knowledge management, psychology, production management, tendering, decision-making and reasoning, risk assessment, project delivery, performance management, management, systems and processes, sociology |
| Topics: | Procurement, Risk Management, Project Management, Quality Management, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Organizational Design, Digital Applications |
| 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