Abstracts – Browse Results
Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 13 results ...
Briscoe, G (2006) How useful and reliable are construction statistics?. Building Research & Information, 34(03), 220–9.
Clarke, L (2006) Valuing labour. Building Research & Information, 34(03), 246–56.
Crawford, P and Vogl, B (2006) Measuring productivity in the construction industry. Building Research & Information, 34(03), 208–19.
Ekeskär, A, Rudberg, M, Institutionen för teknik och, n, Linköpings, u, Kommunikations- och, t and Tekniska, f (2016) Third-party logistics in construction: The case of a large hospital project. Construction Management and Economics, 34(03), 174-91.
Franz, B W and Leicht, R M (2016) An alternative classification of project delivery methods used in the United States building construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 34(03), 160-73.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: typology; integrated project delivery; early contractor involvement; latent class analysis; building construction; data analysis
- ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.1183800
- Abstract:
Although many sources describe the project delivery methods available to owners, there is little empirical data on their defining characteristics. The objective of this research was to examine patterns in contract arrangements, procurement practices and compensation terms used in the US building construction industry. Survey data were collected for projects completed between 2008 and 2013 (N = 204) from owners and contractors belonging to large US professional organizations. A latent class analysis was used to identify five distinct patterns or 'classes' based upon eight characteristics of the project delivery process. These classes were defined as: (I) late builder and trade involvement, with an open, cost-based selection and lump sum contract (9% of projects in sample); (II) late builder and trade involvement, with a prequalified, cost-based selection and lump sum contract (19%); (III) early builder and late trade involvement, with a prequalified non-cost based selection and guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract (26%); (IV) early builder and trade involvement, with a prequalified, cost-based selection and lump sum design-build (DB) contract (27%); (V) early builder and trade involvement, with a prequalified, non-cost based selection and GMP DB contract (18%). Compared to existing classifications of project delivery methods, these classes are data-driven typologies that represent how participants are procured and organized into a project team. The findings have implications as an alternative classification system in project delivery research and as guidance to owners considering their project delivery options.; Although many sources describe the project delivery methods available to owners, there is little empirical data on their defining characteristics. The objective of this research was to examine patterns in contract arrangements, procurement practices and compensation terms used in the US building construction industry. Survey data were collected for projects completed between 2008 and 2013 (N = 204) from owners and contractors belonging to large US professional organizations. A latent class analysis was used to identify five distinct patterns or 'classes' based upon eight characteristics of the project delivery process. These classes were defined as: (I) late builder and trade involvement, with an open, cost-based selection and lump sum contract (9% of projects in sample); (II) late builder and trade involvement, with a prequalified, cost-based selection and lump sum contract (19%); (III) early builder and late trade involvement, with a prequalified non-cost based selection and guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract (26%); (IV) early builder and trade involvement, with a prequalified, cost-based selection and lump sum design-build (DB) contract (27%); (V) early builder and trade involvement, with a prequalified, non-cost based selection and GMP DB contract (18%). Compared to existing classifications of project delivery methods, these classes are data-driven typologies that represent how participants are procured and organized into a project team. The findings have implications as an alternative classification system in project delivery research and as guidance to owners considering their project delivery options.;
Hu, X and Liu, C (2016) Profitability performance assessment in the Australian construction industry: A global relational two-stage DEA method. Construction Management and Economics, 34(03), 147-59.
Ive, G (2006) Re-examining the costs and value ratios of owning and occupying buildings. Building Research & Information, 34(03), 230-45.
Khan, K I A, Flanagan, R and Lu, S-L (2016) Managing information complexity using system dynamics on construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 34(03), 192-204.
Kohler, N (2006) A European perspective on the Pearce report: policy and research. Building Research & Information, 34(03), 287–94.
Macmillan, S (2006) Added value of good design. Building Research & Information, 34(03), 257–71.
Pearce, D (2006) Is the construction sector sustainable?: definitions and reflections. Building Research & Information, 34(03), 201–7.
Tombesi, P (2006) Good thinking and poor value: on the socialization of knowledge in construction. Building Research & Information, 34(03), 272–86.
Turner, R K (2006) Sustainability auditing and assessment challenges. Building Research & Information, 34(03), 197–200.