Apollo, M and Burkacki, D (2024) Key success factors for small design offices in the bidding process. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 20(1), pp. 32-46. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
Competition in the design office market is high, therefore it is important to be aware of the conditions determining the competitive advantage, thus increasing the bidding effectiveness. For this reason, the aim of the article is to identify key success factors (KSF) increasing successful bidding of a small design office. The factors were identified and then analysed based on a literature review, expert interviews and using Group Consensus Cluster Analysis (GCCA) – the module of the AHP method clustering a group of decision makers into smaller subgroups with higher consensus. To examine the managerial implications, a KSF analysis was conducted from the perspective of the bidding effectiveness of the selected small design office. The results indicate that 'technical skills and experience' is the factor most influencing the potential of a small design office. Nevertheless the entire proposed procedure provides important guidelines on how to use the organisation's strengths for its development and what needs to be improved in its operation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Architecture; AHP; Building Design Management; construction project; key success factors analysis; project management efficiency; SME; multi-criteria decision support; Literature reviews; Cluster analysis; Competitive advantage; Design; Subgroups; Clustering; Design factors; Bids; Success factors; Effectiveness |
| Index terms: | construction project, cluster analysis, competition, module, effectiveness, clustering, design factor, bidding, project management, competitive advantage, interview, efficiency, decision support, technical skill, literature review, building design management, subgroup, success factor |
| Subjects: | health monitoring assessment and metrics, data analysis and analytics, data science, bidding, data collection methods, decision analysis, research management, market analysis, performance management, design practice, architectural elements, project management theory and practice, design process, professional development, production management |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Risk Management, Procurement, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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