Akintoye, A and Fitzgerald, E (1995) Design and build: A survey of architects' views. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2(1), pp. 27-44. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Design and build has increased in its use for construction procurement in recent times. However, its performance as a procurement method has been widely criticized by professionals in the construction industry. This paper reports a survey of 40 architects, using a structured questionnaire to investigate the performance of contractor-led design and build in project procurement. Although 20% of architects' private sector workload (and 8% of public sector) is derived from D&B, they perceive this procurement type to involve sacrificing product quality and design innovation. Where clients insist on a choice of D&B, architects generally prefer the use of either novation D&B or develop and construct, rather than traditional' D&B.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architect; design and build; procurement |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, design and build, project procurement, survey, workload, architect, construction procurement, construction industry, procurement method, private sector, product quality, public sector |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, profession, data collection methods, quality assurance, industry analysis, administrative law, management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Procurement, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Human Resources, Quality Management |
| 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