Relative Effectiveness of Project Delivery and Contract Strategies
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 132, Issue 1
Abstract
Project delivery systems define the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in a project. They also establish an execution framework in terms of sequencing of design, procurement, and construction. The decision made in the selection of a project delivery system for a project impacts all phases of execution of the project and greatly impacts the efficiency of project execution. Such decisions should be facilitated by thorough analysis. Structured, quantitative decision analysis processes have been shown to have several benefits over the simplistic, holistic, and informal processes that typically characterize subjective evaluations. However, a dearth of quantitative values of project delivery systems established and validated through research has invariably left project managers with no alternative than to make project delivery selection decisions on the basis of subjective evaluations. Development of the needed quantitative values for application in a decision analysis process would greatly enhance the quality of the decision-making process and provide a defensible rationale for selection of project delivery systems for capital projects. This paper presents research findings that provide the needed quantitative values in this area. Based on the quantitative values defined here, interested parties can develop and implement quantitative evaluation of project delivery alternatives to identify the optimal solution for a given project. Multicriteria decision analysis was found to be the suitable approach for a quantitative, analytical evaluation of project delivery systems. Consequently, the quantitative values presented in this paper were developed in accordance with the requirements of the multicriteria decision analysis technique known as simple multiattribute rating technique with swing weights (SMARTS). Utilizing the quantitative values presented here and applying the analysis technique of SMARTS, a decision support tool has been developed and validated for the Construction Industry Institute. The decision support tool is presently being utilized by member companies of the Construction Industry Institute that were privy to its development. With the presentation of the quantitative values in this paper, other parties interested in developing similar tools would benefit from the research results presented here.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the Construction Industry Institute (CII) at the University of Texas at Austin. The writers would like to thank the membership of the CII Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Research Team for their guidance, wisdom, patience, and encouragement throughout the research process.
References
Borcherding, K., Eppel, T., and Von Winterfeldt, D. (1991). “Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility measurement.” Manage. Sci., 37(12), 1603–1619.
Construction Industry Institute. (2001). “Owner’s tool for project delivery and contract strategy selection.” Research Summary Rep. No. 165-1, The Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute. (2003). “Project delivery and contract strategy selection: A tool for owners,” Implementation resource 165-2, 2nd Ed., The Univ. of Texas at Austin Press, Austin, Tex.
Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Wallenius, J., and Zionts, S. (1992). “Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: The next ten years.” Manage. Sci., 38(5), 645–652.
Dyer, J. S., Edmunds, T., Butler, J. C., and Jia, J. (1998). “A multiattribute utility analysis of alternatives for the disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium.” Oper. Res., 46(6), 749–761.
Edwards, W. (1977). “How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision-making.” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., SMC-7(5), 326–337.
Edwards, W., and Barron, F. H. (1994). “SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement.” Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., 60(3), 306–325.
French, S. (1983). “A survey and interpretation of multi-attribute utility theory.” Multiobjective decision making, S. French, R. Hartley,L. C. Thomas, and D. J. White, eds., Academic, London.
Goodwin, P., and Wright, G. (1991). Decision analysis for management judgment, Wiley, New York.
LaValle, I. H. (1990). Fundamentals of decision analysis, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Olson, D. L. (1996). Decision aids for selection problems, Springer, New York.
Oyetunji, A. A. (2001). “Methodology for selecting project delivery system and contract strategies for capital projects.” PhD dissertation, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Tex.
Oyetunji, A. A., and Anderson, S. D. (2001). “Project delivery and contract strategy selection,” Research Rep. 165-12, Construction Industry Institute, The Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2006 ASCE.
History
Received: Oct 7, 2003
Accepted: Nov 15, 2004
Published online: Jan 1, 2006
Published in print: Jan 2006
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.