Procurement System: Success Factors for Design and Build Contract in the Context of Malaysian Construction Projects
Chapter 1
Introduction
Through time, Design-build has been opted over the other systems as the most effective way of generating construction work (Haque, Alkaabi, & Arosha, 2001). This is due to the fact that Design-build is suitable for any type of project (Molenaar, 2002). It was said that D & B has been, to a certain point, utilized as a problem-solving device for the difficulties that traditional systems have caused (Chan, 2000). While D & B may be the preferred system by many, it is far from being perfect. There appears to be room for improvement in its overall performance in terms of quality, efficiency, productivity, site safety, environmental sustainability and customer satisfaction (Yates, 1995). After all, even though D & B provides for a whole cart-load of advantages and is being preferred by many, the fact remains that it is still at its evolutionary stage, especially in some eastern countries like Hong Kong (Palaneeswaran & Kumaraswamy, 2001).
Numerous studies prove that D & B has been by far the most popular alternative procurement system that is being used (Ndekugri and Turner, 1994). Another study was made investigating the performance of D & B from the point of view of contractors, architects and clients (Akintoye & Fitzgerald, 1995; Songer & Molenaar, 1996; Akintoye, 1994). Lam, Chan, & Chan (2004) conducted a study and determined the practice of the three main stakeholders – client, contractor and consultants, whose knowledge and experience are essential to the development of the D & B method in the construction industry. The said study included a comprehensive literature regarding the potential problems of running D & B projects (Lam, Chan and Chan, 2003a). A similar research was also conducted in Hong Kong on the practice of the D & B method (Lam, Chan and Chan, 2003b; Lam, Chan and Chan, 2003c; Lam, Chan and Chan, 2003d).
The current study intends to determine the procurement success factors specific to the Malaysian context.
Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
2.1 Traditional Mode vs. Design & Build
In recent years, there has been an increasing popularity of design and build as a contracting route in the construction industry over the traditional mode of procurement.
The traditional mode of procurement is only suitable for simple projects. Under such mode, the client will appoint a consultancy team consisting of architects, an engineer and a quantity surveyor to provide design services while contracting the project to the selected contracts.
Due to the new building technology, novel requirements, complexity and large scale of projects, the traditional mode is now considered inadequate. In the traditional mode no coordination and team work exists among the client, design team and construction team. This gives rise to inefficiency in managing time and cost.
In a design and build delivery, the contractor both design and builds the works as shown in the diagrams below (refer to Figures 1 & 2).
Figure 1 : Contractual relationship between the parties in a traditional delivery contract.
Figure 2. Contractual relationship between the parties in a design and build contract.
The need for more cost-effective and time-saving methods has spawned the commencement of the traditional design/bid/build procurement system in order to deliver the project. But then again, the fact of it being a divergent system from the traditional system has caused several problems that have undeniably affected the different levels of construction projects (Chan, Scott, and Lam, 2002). For this reason, other options were established. This need for other systems made Design-build (D & B) a prevalent mode of procuring construction work (Akintoye, 1994).
It would appear from most studies made that most clients either use the procurement method for the reason that they are most familiar with it or they rely on professional advice (Ambrose and Tuckner, 2000). It would seem most regrettable that only a few construction industry professionals fully comprehend the differences in the various procurement systems. For this reason, a great number of those engaged in the construction industry are incapable of making recommendations on which system would be more appropriate for a specific project (Bowen, Pearl & Edwards, 1999). It is important to consider that conducting studies to determine the strength of a procurement system is not easy. It takes time and money. This may very well be the reason why most clients and building professionals opt to follow the procurement system with which they are most familiar with, regardless of its appropriateness for the project (Ambrose & Tuckner, 2000).
2.2 Development of D & B
Up until the middle of the eighteenth century, the design and build method has been prevalent in UK. Masterman (1992). stated that D&B is probably the oldest proven procurement systems in UK. History of the said system would depict that originally, the client, then the architect and finally the builder were, in turn, solely responsible for both the design and construction aspects of most of the building projects implemented during this period (Masterman, 1992).
At this same time, a complete separation of design and construction that had begun during the Renaissance with the emergence of the architectural profession finally occurred. In a sense, it is true that the system we know today, as the conventional procurement system became the main method used to implement projects during that time. After World War II, the design and build method began to emerge from its period of dormancy. At this exact moment in history, in USA, there appears to be an increasing demand for this system (Masterman, 1992).
In late 1960s and early 1970 in the UK, client’s dissatisfaction with the performance of conventional methods of building entailed that the method where there was single point responsibility, where the integration of design and construction could lead to savings in time and where fixed price lump sum tenders could be obtained was attractive and this ensured the growth in the use of design and build system (Masterman, 1992).
Anumba and Evbuomwan (1997) illustrated that an increasing number of clients are adopting the design and build procurement method in the UK. It was estimated that up to 25% of all newly built construction works were based on this method.
The Housing Development Board in Singapore has adopted the design and build contract for around 10% of its construction programme (Kwong, 1996). In Japan, 10% of construction projects are acquired through the design and build procurement method, which is commonly adopted for major works. It has also been extensively used in the public sector of Italy for about 20 years for constructing hospitals, universities and residential buildings.
2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Design and Build Mode
Over time, clients have opted to seek different procurement systems in order to carry out construction projects. These methods were created with the ultimate aim of producing superior structures utilizing only the most cost-effective and time-saving procedures. One of the alternatives that were created to cater to such demand is the Design-build (D & B). Design-build is an example of a traditional project delivery system. This system has been relatively growing its steady market as countries around the world use this method.
Lam, Chan, & Chan (2004) conducted a research that examined the development of the design-build procurement method. Interviews with the client, contractor and contractor’s consultants in the Hong Kong were made. The results reaped the idea that D & B research is conducted by experience-sharing among D & B practitioners. The practitioners also maintained the need for D & B revolves and that there are four main rationale for the wider adoption of D & B in the public sector. These are: (a) the transfer of risks to the contractor; (b) the need to make use of resources and expertise from the contractor; (c) better meeting the principles of public accountability, and; (d) variation avoidance. The study conducted revealed the development of the design-build procurement system in Hong Kong thereby establishing a platform for information exchange among project practitioners in the construction industry.
It has been said that design-build also provides for an avenue for the entire scope of work – architectural and engineering design, construction, project management, cost management and quality control, to be shared as a single-source responsibility by the designer and the builder under one individual contract (Conley, 2002).
A review of the existing literature on the field would show that owners continue to look for construction delivery methods that maintain a competitive bidding environment, enable opportunities for cost savings, minimize reimbursable expenses to owners and provide a single source of responsibility (Conley, 2002). It is interesting to note that the design/build method provides all these advantages and, at the same time, allows owners to change the direction of design, systems, project costs and schedules (Conley, 2002).
The new US Penitentiary (USP) at Coleman is claimed to be the first USP D&B project to be contracted by the BOP. This penitentiary occupies 100 acres of the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex and accommodates a group of buildings in a campus plan arrangement with a combined total gross building area of 54,000 square meters. It is designed to house 960 inmates and to provide all inmate services and ancillary functions from within the USP’s own secure, perimeter-fenced compound (Conley, 2002).
Clark Construction Co. Inc. and the DLR Group, an architectural, engineering and planning firm, were responsible on the project. The team’s ability to organize and work together proved to be effective with each viewing its individual roles and responsibilities from very different perspectives, while keeping the project focus in the forefront. Also, an unwavering professionalism and open communication were also necessary to produce viable construction schedules, system pricing, design and engineering, and construction means and methods in a concise group voice (Conley, 2002).
Swanson contended that, “This project is an excellent example of the advantages of the application of the design/build delivery method to government projects. From the beginning, the BOP was very clear in communicating its expectations regarding definition of the scope and specific technical requirements for the project as well as its prequalification requirements of the design/build teams. The design/build approach provides a clear single point of responsibility on all facets of the project. One of the keys to success with these projects is the level of commitment and trust between the team members. Our working relationship is based upon mutual respect, trust and common goals. Our teaming structure has established a framework that minimizes the potential for conflict among the design/build team, allowing the full resources of our organizations to focus on the needs of the project” (Conley, 2002).
The advantages of the D&B system in the UK have also been investigated. According to the results of Design and Build Client Survey (Bennett et al., 1996), clients in the U.K select D&B method because of the following reasons (listed in descending order of importance): 1) single point of responsibility, 2) Guaranteed maximum price, 3) avoidance of design and construction risks, 4) avoidance of conflicts, disputes and claims, 5) better value for money, 6) faster building times, 7) reliability of completion on time, 8) lower costs, 9) flexibility of project team, 10) better understanding of commercial requirements, 11) guaranteed quality, 12) well thought-out standard design, and 13) innovative one-off designs (Bennett et al, 1996).
All in all, these results are consistent with the findings of past procurement surveys, Songer et al. (1996) held that the primary reason for both US and UK clients to adopt D&B method is largely because of their need to shorten the overall project completion time. Project cost certainty and reduction of the overall project cost are also important considerations. Architects and builders in Hong Kong agree with this view that project time and project cost are the key factors for using D&B method (Mo & Ng, 1997). Various studies in the procurement selection literature also contain a similar conclusion. Industry experts in the UK and Australia consider D&B as a viable method for clients who want responsibility for the project by one single organization, transfer of the risks of cost and time slippage, firm price, strict completion date, early completion and disputes and arbitration avoidance (Chan & Lam, 1995; Skitmore & Marsden, 1988).
D&B method has been typified by many as a method that is most suitable for procuring buildings with simple and standardized design. Most UK clients believe that D&B method is appropriate for office building, warehouse, standard manufacturing facilities and residential building projects (Bennett et al., 1996). Yet there are some architects who think that it is most suitable for industrial buildings (factories). Then again, the contractors argue the D&B is good for educational (schools), industrial (factories) and residential (housing) projects in Hong Kong (Mo and Ng, 1997). However, some U.K. practitioners do not totally agree with the idea that D&B is only appropriate for procuring some very simple structures such as garden sheds. In Ndekugri and Turner’s (1994) survey, a majority of contractors (98% of 74 respondents) strongly disagreed with the “garden shed” image. All clients also disagreed while 38% of architects disagreed and 25% agreed with this image. It seems that practitioners’ general impression or expectation of the application of D&B method does not always necessarily reflect its usage in reality. In fact, D&B method has been applied to various types of complex projects such as health/hospital, civil engineering and refurbishment (Akintoye, 1994; Akintoye and Fitzgerald, 1995).
But the fact remains that a majority of practitioners contend that D&B is a complex method and is difficult to successfully to building projects with requirements of a high standard of design quality and workmanship using this system. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that neither guaranteed quality nor innovative design is considered by the UK clients as an important procurement selection criterion in Bennett’s et al. (1996) survey. Some of the clients further maintain that poor quality is the major drawback of D&B method (Bennett et al., 1996). Architects and builders in Hong Kong Design consequently ranked quality as a minor selection criterion for D&B method (Mo & Ng, 1997).
Still on the advantages of D & B, Budler, Sabbatine & Pickering (2000) believed that the design-build delivery system is a practical alternative especially when there exists overriding schedules, budgets and quality concerns. But then again, the design-build method requires the several key elements. These include: 1) a well-defined program as a starting point; 2) a successful melding of owner and design-build teams; 3) availability of owner personnel to make “on the fly” decisions; 4) a commitment to achieve schedule, cost and quality levels through partnering; and 5) a commitment to achieve the overall community vision of the project. Pursuing these factors on a regular basis would inevitably lead to a successful project (Budler, Sabbatine & Pickering, 2000).
2.4 Global D & B Trends
The United Kingdom and the United States have proven to be staunch supporters of D & B as there have been significant statistics demonstrating the increasing demand for such system (Rowings, Federle & Rusk, 2000). The past decade has established that in UK, the use of D & B has swelled dramatically and that there exists a growing amount of variants of the D & B procurement route (Rizzo, 1998). An estimate of 25% of all new-build construction work has been based on this method and this figure is even expected to rise exponentially in the future (Ndekugri & Turner, 1994; Anumba & Evbuomwan, 1997). In the US, Design-build has been in existence for a while. Currently, more than one-third of the current construction projects are using D & B (Ernzen & Schexnayder, 2000).
Likewise in Australia, the Novation contract has been used in a number of projects as fast-building approach has been endorsed by many (Chan, 1994). In Italy, there has also been an extensive use of D & B in the public sector over the past 20 years for constructing public structures like hospitals, universities and residential buildings (Anumba & Evbuomwan, 1997).
There appears to be an expansion in the utilization of the D & B system in Asia-pacific countries. This may be due to the fact that these economies have are fast rising and their fiscal ability has improved dramatically. This growth in Asia has caused non-traditional procurement approaches to expand rapidly in some eastern countries, Japan being one of them, has a long history of using D & B and more than one third of the Japanese works of the contractor are based on D & B contracts (Lam, 1990).
In Singapore, D & B is also gaining popularity as more than 25% of all building projects (measured by value) in 1999 were procured through D & B. There seems to be a significant increase as compared to the 10% usage in 1995 (Lip, 2001). However, in Hong Kong, there appears to be a limit in the utilization of D % B as it is restricted to the public sector only. Also, the D & B project participants were said to be unconvinced with the need to have a wider adoption of D & B in the public sector projects (Lam, Chan & Chan, 2003e). Also, the project participants are unclear on the viewpoints of their team players towards the use of the D & B method that inevitably led to the confusion in defining D & B in the public sector (Lam, Chan & Chan, 2003f). Additionally, even with the preponderance of proofs regarding the advantages of the D & B system, the knowledge of the applicability of D & B to specific project types and situations is still limited (Konchar, Sanvido & Moore, 1997). For this, project participants may not have sufficient knowledge in managing D & B projects successfully (Hemlin, 1999).
According to Chan et al (2004), even though the Hong Kong Government has been a staunch promoter of the D&B method since the late 1980s, the clients in the public sector are still unconvinced with the desirability of D&B. there were some institutional clients in the public sector who have tried D&B method but reverted to the traditional one. Yet, there are also those who are continually searching for every possible chance to depart from the traditional way and continue to use the D&B method. Some clients in the public sector have never used it and do not think it is attractive. These scenarios all point out to one fact, that is, that there is not a single reason that explains why some clients use D&B method and some do not to use it. After all, their decision-making was based on different grounds. This is to say that there are just certain procurement methods that are more appropriate for a particular type of clients. In a sense, a tailor-made system cannot be applied, as a one-size-fits-all policy would prove to be suicidal (Chan, et al, 2004).
2.5 Related Empirical Studies
2.5.1 Trend of D & B Adoption in Hong Kong
There has been a mounting need for more integrated project procurement strategies in the world. For this reason, D & B contracts are becoming increasingly popular (Palaneeswaran & Kumaraswamy, 2001). D & B has been gaining a steady market as more than one-third of the current construction projects in the United States are using this approach (Yates, 1995).
Hong Kong has been characterized as one of the biggest design-build markets in the Asia-Pacific Region (Quatman, 2001). In April 2000, the Construction Industry Review Committee was appointed by the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to review the current state of the industry. It was held by the committee that D & B can better achieve buildability than the traditional method because of the fact that in D & B, the contractor is heavily involved at the design stage to contribute construction knowledge to the design of the project (Rowlinson, 1987). Consequently, there is better management in D & B projects and this would undoubtedly increase the success of the project.
There may seem to be an expansion of D & B in penetrating both the private and the public sectors (Molenaar, Songer & Barash, 1999). The statistics from Works Bureau in Hong Kong presents an increase in the number and contract value of D & B contracts over the past 5 years. In this said period, the percentage of D & B contract value has also been increased to nearly one-fifth of the total contract value.
The need to cater to the demands of the client and improving project performance had been the main reasons for the emergence of the D & B system (Moore & Dainty, 2001). The continued and constant proliferation of the use of D & B in the public sector of Hong Kong has been the motivation for the need of the authors to further investigate the views of stakeholders on the development of such innovative procurement system (Moore & Dainty, 2001).
Lam et al (2004) assert that in Hong Kong, most practitioners attribute the materialization of D & B in theory with the idea of responsibility. This is through the need for practitioners to essentially be equipped with the proper set of information in order to bring about the success of their projects. Also, practitioners are required to be knowledgeable to account for the increasing use of D & B in the public sector as this spells out the growing trend in the market. With the status quo providing a clear picture as to the dominant role that D & B would be playing in the coming years, practitioners are now mandated to sharpen their knowledge and capability in running D & B projects. For this reason, the research study provides practical applications to the construction industry.
A number of critical problems have inundated the construction industry for years (Construction Industry Review Committee, 2001). D & B seem to be the solution that practitioners in field need as this system requires the contractor to be responsible for both design and construction and research. This nature of D & B has attracted the interests of both researchers and practitioners because this method is geared towards improving the construction project delivery (Construction Industry Review Committee, 2001).
While traditional procurement system will not waver, D & B would inevitably be the preferred method. For this, research in D & B provides many benefits to practitioners in a global sense. In UK, the construction industry holds that the industry needs to have a sound understanding of its clients (Fellows & Langford, 1993) and D & B is a system that provides a more responsive method where the contractor is required to design and build according to the proposal based on the requirements of the client. A study in D & B would enable the practitioners to learn more about which areas of project management should be looked into in order to further enhance the success of D & B projects (Fellows & Langford, 1993).
Lam et al’s (2004) study includes an examination of practitioners whose knowledge on D & B was solicited based on their on-the-job work experience. The project participants maintain that D & B is best understood by its benefits of single point contact. These project participants are all aware that D & B can make the best use of resources and that it also has the tendency to avoid variations. They further argued that such benefits should also be made available to the private sector be the use of D & B to a greater extent. While a research on the D & B method per se is lacking, project participants were still bale to trade D & B knowledge with each other by sharing their of experiences. For the reason that there is a limited application of D & B, practitioners are left with no other choice but to rely on the experiences of those who worked first-hand with the system to point out possible areas that need improvement. This would eventually lead to the formation of a more systematized and more encompassing D & B system that would generate a more responsive D & B. In the examination made, a suggestion was put forward to develop a knowledge center at the industry level that would provide the whole industry with an access to the best practices information (Egan, 1998). Their study can provide the knowledge of practitioners on running D & B projects as a basis to develop further learning programs.
2.5.2 A Comparison of the Performance of Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Building Projects in Singapore
The construction industry has been beset by two of the most common project delivery systems. These are design-build (DB) and design-bid-build (DBB). These two schemes are certainly the best systems that combine quality with cost-effectivity. The question that arises now is which between the two delivery systems should be used. The answer to that is dependent on how well the project could perform under each system(Kerh & Yng Ling, 2004). This study is geared towards the elucidation of the circumstances that would bring about a possible empirical comparison of the performance of projects that used these two procurement systems. The project performance was done into 14 metrics. Data was gathered from 107 building projects in Singapore. It was found that in most instances, there are actually no apparent differences between the performance of DB and DBB projects. The small number of differences include: first, that DB projects have higher delivery speed in general, and; second, that DB office projects are easier to commission than DBB projects. These findings purports that there is still a need to look beyond procurement system to control project performance (Kerh & Yng Ling, 2004).
2.5.3 Rationale of Design and Build from Major Public Clients in Hong Kong
Chan, Ho & Tam (2000) maintained that design and build has emerged as the most popular procurement system. D&B is said to enlarge the scope of participation of both contractors and consultancies in big civil engineering projects, particularly those in the public sector. Also, D&B allows a complex project to be implemented in a more cost-effective manner within a shorter period of time. Their study imparts the views of clients in public sector on D&B procurement method. More specifically, their reasons of adopting D&B were explored. Data was gathered through face-to-face interviews of ten senior staff from four major public client organizations in Hong Kong. The results gathered indicate that public clients have divergent views on the D&B method. Apart from functional requirements such as project completion time, cost certainty etc., internal resources and political force would also influence client’s adoption of D&B method in the public sector (Chan et al, 2000).
This research aimed to identify, evaluate and categorize the project success factors to smaller groups using factor analysis and multiple regression analysis. It also explores the relationship between the project performance with the participant’s satisfaction (Chan, Ho, & Tam, 2000).
Using surveys as data collection method, about 120 questionnaires were delivered to key project participants including clients, end-users, D&B contractors, design consultants and architects. The respondents were asked to rank 31 project success factors. The focus of these factors were on the duties, capabilities and responsibilities. Through factor analysis, 6 project success factors like project team commitment, client’s competencies, contractor’s competencies, risk and liability assessment, end-users’ needs and constraints imposed by end-users were extracted. As indicated by the multiple regression findings, the commitment of the project team to the D&B project was found to be the most important factor. This was followed by client’s competencies and lastly by contractors’ competencies (Chan et al, 2001a).
This research gives participants an in-depth understanding on the D&B project’s key factors/criteria relationships. The information gathered benefits for both the practice and the education of project management. Substantially, this research will improve the project management, create the management education program, overcome the project team members adverse relationships and help emphasize the importance of teamwork. All these contribute towards achieving success and help cope with project challenges in the future (Chan et al, 2001a).
Moreover, based on the 2 case studies done by Pheng (2000), the civil engineering contractor must coordinate all works related to the completion of the project smoothly. This involves good contract documentation identifying responsibilities and active participation of the corporation. There must be an effective management in terms of managing cost, quality, schedule and disputes, must have a clear understanding on the technicalities of D & B and equal managing in both design and construction to ensure project success (Chan et al, 2001b; Pheng, 2000).
2.6 Objectives
The following are the objectives of the research:
1) To evaluate the growth and the usefulness of the Design and Build project in the Malaysian construction setting;
2) To identify and examine the success factors contributing to Design and Build project in the country from the perceptions of contractors, clients, engineers, consultants and end users;
3) To analyze its success in terms of construction time, budget, cost, effectiveness in coordination and organizational structure; and
4) To recommend improvements in the construction process, communication and decision making.
2.7 Hypotheses
It is hypothesized that the significant growth of design and build is related to the improvement of team relationships and the process is more efficient and effective as compare to traditional procurement system.
Chapter 3
Methodology
3.1 Research Methodology
Sekaran (1999) has defined deductive research methodology as “the process of arriving at conclusions by interpreting the meaning of the data analysis results”. In this method a concept/theory (hypothesis) is formulated before it is put to test through empirical or real world observation. The process of deduction can be understood by the help of Figure 1:
Figure 1. The deductive research method.
The researcher has used the deductive research methodology for the purpose of this study. To begin with, a hypothesis was formulated that the significant growth of design and build is related to the improvement of team relationships and the process is more efficient and effective as compare to traditional procurement system. After the formulation of the hypothesis, the researcher converted the conceptual idea (based on the above figure) into survey instruments that will allow the gathering of primary data.
3.2 Research Design Decision
The study uses a descriptive correlational research design in determining the success factors of the Malaysian procurement system. According to Zikmund (2000, p. 56) the aim of the descriptive research is to provide an error free result out of the research. The reason for selecting this research is it has some idea and this research is successful in answering the relevant questions. Moreover, the study is correlational because it aimed to establish the factors which significantly correlate with perceptions of project success.
3.3 Research Approach
3.3.1 Qualitative Research
According to Mittman (2001), qualitative research data collection methods are often informal and flexible. Where flexibility represents strength in qualitative research it produces unfocused data collection and variable data quality when qualitative methods are applied in deductive research. The researcher is focusing on qualitative data such as interviews, documents and participant observation data. According to Zikmund (2000), qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable the researcher to study brand preferences in the consumer market. The motivation to this research esteem from the observation that, if there is one thing which distinguishes human from the natural world, it is the ability to talk.
The primary research carried out for this report will be based upon depth interviews and focus groups, these two qualitative methods of interviews provided the opportunity to draw preliminary conclusions given the limited resources available for this initial research. The interview will provide in depth exploratory information on the different views and the focus groups will provide the ideas and debates of consumers.
The qualitative approach. In a qualitative study the researcher is not so interested in obtaining a set of facts, but is more interested in gaining an insight into a perspective. Researchers using this approach adopt a more subjectivist approach to the social world (Cohen & Manion, 1994). The philosophy of this approach is that knowledge and facts are subjective and that problems cannot be fully understood in isolation. It is important that problems are viewed as part of a complex pattern of links and relationships (Easterby-Smith et al, 1996).
The main advantages of the qualitative approach is that it is intensive but flexible. Small samples, even single cases, may be sufficient, as long as they are investigated in depth and over a period of time, (Easterby-Smith et al, 1996). This has obvious attractions for the slenderly resourced, single-handed researcher. However, there are also disadvantages to this approach. They explain that qualitative methods are slow and may create anxiety because of the lack of structure in the research design. The more participative and reflexive style of this approach means that the research is more likely to invade the researcher’s way of life.
3.3.2 Quantitative Research
In a quantitative study, the researcher is interested in collecting evidence so that a statement can be made about the outcomes of broadly comparable experiences. Researchers using this approach adopt an objective (or positivist) approach to the social world (Cohen & Manion, 1994). The philosophy of this approach is that knowledge and facts are objective and that complex problems can be best understood if they are reduced into simpler component parts, (Easterby-Smith et al, 1996). This perspective expresses itself most forcefully in a search for universal laws which explain and govern the reality which is being observed (Cohen & Manion, 1994).
Quantitative methods have a number of attractions for the inexperienced researcher. The main attraction is that they appear to be clearer cut, with more obvious boundaries around the data collection phase. However, there are also disadvantages. To meet the requirements of the underlying philosophy of this approach the research instrument must be scientifically respectable. Reason & Rowen ( 1981) makes the point that the development of the research instrument must incorporate ‘rigorous design, administrative control and clerical accuracy’. Also, if there is to be any subtlety of analysis it will be necessary for the research to be moderately large scale. Easterby-Smith et al (1996) suggest samples of 100’s or 1000’s are required if reliable results are to be produced.
It is suggested by Easterby-Smith et al (1996) that the quantitative philosophy leads to a preference for the use of written multiple choice questionnaires and surveys, and the statistical analysis of the results.
3.3.3 Chosen Research Style
The focus of this study is to investigate the perceptions of the success factors in the procurement system in the Malaysian construction industry. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used in investigating the current topic. The qualitative style of approach will allow a certain flexibility within the study, to take account of the perceptions of construction practitioners. On the other hand, there are also some considerations in adopting a quantitative data gathering technique through the use of survey questionnaires.
A survey is a means of “gathering information about the characteristics, actions, or opinions of a large group of people, referred to as a population” (Salkind, 2000). There are several ways of collating data; surveys are the primary means through which data is measured and captured. They have varied purposes, and encompass “marketing surveys, opinion surveys, and political polls”, among others.
Survey questionnaires that have been deployed for research have two specific objectives. One is the quantitatively depict certain facets of the group being investigated. The analysis of the questionnaires may be mainly focused on associations between variables or with making estimates in a descriptive manner to a well defined group of respondents. Next, it is also an effective means of gathering data by soliciting individual evaluations through predetermined items or questions. Their responses, which may pertain to their own views compose the data set subject for statistical analysis (Salkind, 2000).
The familiarity with the subject and to explore initial constructs related to the subject are some of the objectives of undertaking survey research. In the current dissertation, this data gathering technique has been utilized to probe on the broad array of answers which may probably be given in some other similar population. Moreover, it has been used to finetune the instruments along its psychometric characteristics. The main focal point of the exploratory survey is to assess which constructs to measure and the manner which is best fit for undertaking such measurement. Finally, it is also utilized to uncover and define new avenues and categories for research of the population under investigation (Salkind, 2000).
Numerous units of analyses are utilized in survey research; however, the counts for units in data gathering is conventionally “individuals”. By convention, their answers are cumulated for “larger units of analysis such as role, work group, department or organization”. The objectives of the study, it may be adequate to utilize any of these units. Nonetheless, it is usual for numerous respondents to be used since these individuals serve different functional units and occupy various levels of the organizational structure. In effect, they have peculiar views and evaluations on the topic at hand (Salkind, 2000).
Primary data collection is concerned with the gathering of data that is unique to the peculiar requisites of the study. On the basis of the goals of the research and secondary data collection, a questionnaire was drafted to allow the gathering of primary data for this research. Questionnaires are often the only plausible means of covering a big number of respondents that will permit valid statistical outcomes. An effectively crafted tool that is utilized well can yield data beneficial for both the general performance of the test system in addition to data on its particular portions or components. Thus, this is the reason the researcher has selected a questionnaire a data gathering technique, particularly on gathering the demographic profiles of the respondents (Salkind, 2000).
The questionnaire is a pencil-and-paper measurement instrument used when data is collected by means of self-reporting techniques (Chisnall, 1997). They are either mailed to the relative people, or used on physical level with the coordinator being present to aid the person responding with any queries or problems. The information received is limited to the respondent’s written responses to specifically constructed questions, designed prior to the meeting between the two. Questionnaires either describe or measure individual/group characteristics such as values, attitudes, opinions, etc. and contain four types of questions: demographics, behaviour, knowledge and attitude. Finally, they can be classified according to the type of response required, or the type of questionnaire administered (Chisnall, 1997). Other considerations are the resources and time available for the research to be carried out. Having considered all of these factors the chosen research style will be both qualitative and quantitative.
3.4 Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire has been self-constructed, dealing with evaluations of different factors related to the success of a procurement system. These close-ended questions had fixed options given for each, and the respondent simply checked which option/s are applicable for him/her. Close-ended questions are questions that the researcher provides, and which may be accomplished by putting a check mark on a box or by encircling a response that corresponds to your choice. Oppenheim (1992) suggests these questions are straightforward and thus easier and quicker to answer; they are very useful in testing specific hypothesis. Most probably, they shall be utilized in the beginning of the investigation, since the unrestricted responses they attract create a better picture of the survey for the researcher. The main advantage of this kind of question is its ability to obtain a summated value.
As Chisnall (1997) suggests that mail questionnaire is a predetermined set of questions that is sent to a predetermined sample. Its advantages over other methods include its low price, reassured anonymity, confidentiality, its large target scope and its ability to keep certain standards. Mail questionnaires are advantageous when responses have to be obtained from a sample that is geographically dispersed, or it is difficult or not possible to conduct telephone interviews to obtain the same data without much expense. Respondents can take more time to respond at convenience. However, the return rates of mail questionnaires are typically low. A 30% response rate is considered acceptable. Another disadvantage of the mail questionnaire is that any doubts the respondents might have cannot be clarified. Another disadvantage is the restriction to verbal behaviour; answers must be accepted as written without the benefit of additional explanations which interviewers could obtain by probing questions, and overall lack of control on the settings of the research (Chisnall, 1997). Because of these constraints, the researcher decided to personally administer the tool to the respondents.
It was finally decided that the self-administered questionnaire would be used for the purposes of this research. This was attributed to limitations in monetary funds and time, as well as the fact the entire preparation, administration and final discussion had to be solely assessed by the researcher.
There are some strong advantages that set out the self-administered questionnaire over other data collection techniques (Bryman, 1992). When compared to the mail questionnaire, the chosen method secures a higher response rate and costs less. The first of these advantages can be attributed to the fact that it is handed out in person, and that the interviewer is present. As a result, the overall atmosphere is warmer, friendlier and less impersonal. Additionally, because of the presence of the interviewer, the participants are accorded a wider scope of clarity. If anything is not clear in the questionnaire, the researcher can clarify a particular question, achieving a higher degree of accuracy and consequently more reliable responses. With regard to the second advantage, the selected method can be followed at a comparatively low cost, as there is no demand for trained staff but solely the cost of printing the actual questionnaire forms (Bryman, 1992).
3.5 Procedure
The researcher began by gathering secondary data from books, journals, and online references. This provided him with a comprehensive background on the topic, leading to the hypothesis. Next, he proceeded with the construction of the instrument and its validation. The tool has been content validated through the help of an academician. Following content validation, it has also been pilot tested to ensure clarity of the questions and logical flow. It has been administered to 100 consultants, engineers and architects, which are involved in construction projects in Malaysia. All responses were gathered, tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results were compared against past literature and recommendations were put forth.
3.6 Research Instrument
The instrument is a self-constructed questionnaire. The first portion of the tool inquired about basic information which included the respondent’s name, current position, tenure in the current position, and total years of experience in the construction industry.
The first item of the instrument asks about the value of the construction project which the respondent undertook. It has the following options: 1) less than RM 10 million, 2) between RM 10 million and RM 100 million, 3) between RM 100 million and RM 1 billion, and 4) more than RM 1 billion.
The second item asks about the particular business of the company, with the following alternative responses: Client – Developer, Consultant – (Architect), Consultant – (Quantity Surveyor), Consultant – Management, Client – Government, Client – Private Investor, Main Contractor, Specialist Contractor, Supplier, and Engineer.
The next item inquires about involvement in particular procurement systems, including Traditional System, Design and Build / Turnkey, Project Management, Construction Management / Management Contracting, Build-Operate-Transfer, Private Financial Initiative (PFI), and Partnering.
The fourth item asks the respondent to rate certain factors in order of importance, determining its impact on project success. These factors include: completion on time, completion within budget,
clients’ overall satisfaction, quality production, minimal / absence of conflicts, minimal / absence of variations, improvement in project communication, increased productivity, and operation efficiency.
The fifth item asks the respondent to identify which procurement system is likely to allow them to achieve the yardsticks of success which they have determined in the previous item. The options include Project Management, Construction Management / Management Contracting, Build-Operate-Transfer, Private Financial Initiative (PFI), Traditional System, Design and Build, and Partnering.
Item 6 talks about means of achieving project success, including the following: adequate funding throughout project, comprehensive contract documentation, availability of resources, continuing involvement of stakeholders in the project, competent Project Manager, up to date technology utilization, proper emphasis on past experience, multidisciplinary / competent project team, awarding bids to the right contractor, commitment to project, clear objectives and scope, top management support, community involvement, clear information & communication channels, and frequent progress meetings.
The next item again asks which procurement system will allow them to exercise the means which they have put forth in Item 6.
The final item asks the respondent to tick the strengths of the procurement system which they have chosen in the previous items. These strengths are enumerated as follows: certainty of contract sum, certainty of completion time, certainty of quality, value for money, reduction in project duration, reduction in project cost, minimal project variation, communication improvements, increased productivity, operation efficiency, and least contractual problems – arbitration / litigation
The instrument has been content validated by an academician and pilot tested to ensure clarity of the items and smooth and logical flow of questions.
3.7 Method for Data Analysis
The statistical tools that shall be used for the quantitative portion are descriptive statistics. These will include frequency and percentage distributions and averages. The standard deviations of the items shall also be computed.
3.8 Methodological Limitations
One methodological limitation of the research includes its time constraints. There could have been more respondents integrated into the sample given more time for its completion. Moreover, the respondents have not been classified based on the size of their companies. This may have caused differences in their perceptions of the effectiveness of a procurement system.
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
Table 1. Positions of respondents.
Current Position
Frequency
Percentage
Architect
20
20.00%
Engineer
23
23.00%
Consultant
26
26.00%
Quantity Surveyor
22
22.00%
Project Manager
9
9.00%
Total
100
100.00%
Table 1 shows the positions that are being occupied by the respondents as of the period of survey administration. It shows that majority of the respondents are consultants (26.00%). This is followed by the positions of engineer (23.00%); quantity surveyor (22.00%); architect (20.00%); and project manager (9.00%).
Table 2. Construction project value.
Construction Project Value
Frequency
Percentage
Less than RM 10M
10
10%
RM10M to RM100M
63
63%
RM100M to RM1B
27
27%
>1B
0
0%
Total
100
100%
The foregoing table shows that majority of the respondents have handled projects between RM10M to RM100M (63.00%); RM100M to RM1B (27.00%); and Less than RM 10M at 10.00%. None of the respondents have managed projects greater than 1B.
Table 3. Business of the company.
Business of the Company
Frequency
Percentage
Client-Developer
10
10.00%
Consultant – Architect
17
17.00%
Consultant – Quantity Surveyor
11
11.00%
Consultant – Management
12
12.00%
Client – Government
6
6.00%
Client – Private Investor
13
13.00%
Main Contractor
4
4.00%
Specialist Contractor
6
6.00%
Supplier
17
17.00%
Engineer
4
4.00%
Total
100
100.00%
There are diverse responses on the question of the company’s business. The categories with the highest percentages are consultant-architect and supplier, tied at 17.00%. This category is followed by client-private investor with 13.00%; consultant-management at 12.00%; consultant-quantity surveyor with 11.00%; and client developer at 10.00%. Client-government and specialist contractor are tied at 6.00%. Main contractor and engineer were also tied at 4.00%.
Table 4. Procurement system respondents have experienced with past projects.
Procurement System
% Involved
Traditional System
100.00%
Design and Build/Turnkey
29.00%
Project Management
46.00%
Construction Management
63.00%
Build-Operate-Transfer
20.00%
Private Financial Initiative
18.00%
Partnering
35.00%
Table 4 shows the procurement systems that the respondents have been involved with in the past. All of the respondents have been engaged with the traditional system (100%). 63.00% have been involved with construction management. 46.00% have experience with project management. Partnering garnered 35.00%. Design and build/turnkey have yielded 29.00%. Build-operate-transfer received 20.00%. Finally, private financial initiative has received 18.00%.
Table 5. Measures of success.
Measure of Success
% Selected
Overall Rank
Completion on time
100.00%
2.00
Completion within budget
100.00%
2.00
Client’s overall satisfaction
90.00%
4.00
Quality production
30.00%
7.50
Minimal/absence conflicts
30.00%
7.50
Minimal/absence variations
0.00%
8.00
Improvement in project communication
70.00%
5.00
Increased productivity
60.00%
6.00
Operation efficiency
100.00%
2.00
When asked about their measures of success, 100% of the respondents cited completion on time, completion with budget, and operation efficiency. This gives the three factors the highest ranks (2.00). The fourth highest ranked factor is client’s overall satisfaction, with 90.00%, followed by improvement in project communication cited by 70.00% of the respondents. Increased productivity has been chosen by 60.00% of those who responded. This is quality production and minimal absence/conflicts, which have been cited by 30.00% of the respondents. At seventh rank are quality production and minimal / absence of conflicts both receiving 30.00%. The last item is minimal / absence of variations which was not selected by any respondent (0.00%).
Table 6. Procurement system that will allow the exercise of success factors.
Procurement System
Frequency
Percentage
Project Management
21
21.00%
Construction Management
9
9.00%
Build-Operate-Transfer
7
7.00%
Private Financial Initiative
0
0.00%
Traditional System
35
35.00%
Design and Build
28
28.00%
Partnering
0
0.00%
Total
100
100.00%
When asked about which procurement system allows the exercise of these success factors, the respondents’ most popular choice is the traditional system (35.00%); followed by design and build (28.00%); project management (21.00%); and construction management (9.00%); build-operate-transfer (7.00%). The options private financial initiative and partnering were not chosen by any respondent (0.00%).
Table 7. Determinants/means of success.
Means
% Selected
Overall Rank
Adequate funding throughout project
100.00%
2.50
Comprehensive contract documentation
16.00%
11.00
Availability of resources
16.00%
11.00
Continuing involvement of stakeholders in the project
0.00%
14.00
Competent Project Manager
100.00%
2.50
Up to date technology utilization
0.00%
14.00
Proper emphasis on past experience
32.00%
7.50
Multidisciplinary / competent project team
0.00%
14.00
Awarding bids to the right contractor
32.00%
7.50
Commitment to project
100.00%
2.50
Clear Objectives and Scope
16.00%
11.00
Top Management Support
84.00%
5.00
Community involvement
16.00%
11.00
Clear information & communication channels
100.00%
2.50
Frequent progress meetings
48.00%
6.00
When asked for the determinants or the means for success, the respondents’ most popular choices include adequate funding throughout the project, competent project manager, commitment to project, and clear information and communication channels (100.00%). This is followed by top management support (84.00%); frequent progress meetings (48.00%); proper emphasis on past experience and awarding bids to the right contractors (32.00%); comprehensive contract documentation, availability of resources, clear objectives and scope, and community involvement (16.00%). The lowest ranking items are up to date technology utilization, multidisciplinary/competent project team, and continuing involvement of stakeholders in the project (0.00%).
Table 8. Procurement system most likely to have the most measures of success.
Procurement System
Frequency
Percentage
Project Management
17
17.00%
Construction Management
5
5.00%
Build-Operate-Transfer
7
7.00%
Private Financial Initiative
4
4.00%
Traditional System
35
35.00%
Design and Build
28
28.00%
Partnering
4
4.00%
Total
100
100.00%
When the respondents were queried about the procurement system which is lost likely to have the most measures of success, the highest percentage was yielded by the traditional system (35.00%); followed by design and build (28.00%); project management (17.00%); build-operate-transfer (7.00%); construction management (5.00%); and private financial initiative and partnering (tied at 4.00%).
Table 9. Cross-comparison of procurement systems’ success.
Advantage
Traditional Systems
Design and Build Systems
Management-oriented Systems
Certainty of Contract Sum
12.00%
48.00%
40.00%
Certainty of Completion Time
14.00%
48.00%
38.00%
Certainty of Quality
12.00%
56.00%
32.00%
Value for Money
12.00%
63.00%
25.00%
Reduction in Project Duration
12.00%
56.00%
32.00%
Reduction in Project Cost
16.00%
61.00%
23.00%
Minimal Project Variation
15.00%
50.00%
35.00%
Communication improvements
19.00%
54.00%
27.00%
Increased Productivity
12.00%
48.00%
40.00%
Operation Efficiency
12.00%
52.00%
36.00%
Least Contractual Problems – Arbitration / Litigation
12.00%
52.00%
36.00%
The final question aimed to cross-compare three different procurement systems on several criteria. Traditional systems were chosen over the design and build systems and management-oriented systems on none of the criteria. Design and build systems was the most popular choice on all of the criteria of certainty of contract sum, certainty of completion time, certainty of quality, value for money, reduction in project duration, reduction in project cost, minimal project variation, communication improvements, increased productivity, operation efficiency, and least contractual problems on arbitration and litigation.
The results of the current study clearly indicate that Design and Build Systems are slowly gaining ground as a procurement system of choice among Malaysian contractors, consultants and engineers. However, most respondents’ top of mind answer of the procurement system which is likely to exhibit the measures of success is still the traditional system. There are also some inherent difficulties in the use of this system; however, when respondents were asked point by point and asked to cross-compare the three systems of traditional, D & B and management oriented systems, D & B has been shown to be the most popular on all criteria.
Design and Build projects are being believed to create more value and beneficial outcomes to owners, architects, engineers and contractors. However, this belief might not be true as contractors might face some disadvantages while pursuing the design and build project. Due to the price quoted during conceptual design stage, the financial risk had increased (Ernzen & Schexnayder, 2001). It is possible too that the type of building or project will have an effect on the assessment of system effectiveness. This is consistent with Ernzen & Schexnayder’s (2001) findings. Ernzen & Schexnayder (2001) collected data collected from one of the nation’s largest general contractors company that had notable experience with design and build projects. Case studies were conducted on design/build and design/bid/build projects to allow comparisons on the labour cost. The variation in the actual and budgeted quantities was determined and it demonstrated that the design/build project experienced large fluctuation. It also means that the project budget didn’t reflect actual values compared to the used of non-design/build’s (Ernzen & Schexnayder, 2001).
A study was conducted on 24 design/build projects from the same company focusing on their overall profits. A profit margin comparison had been done on design/build versus non-design/build work for the 7 years period (1991 – 1997). It showed that the profit margins for design/build projects were 3.5% points higher compared to the non-design/build progress. The actual profit margins were used to determine which type of design/build construction project come out to be profitable. As a result, the heavy type building construction is more profitable than building and industrial type projects (Ernzen & Schexnayder, 2001).
D&B’s Cost Performance
The respondents of the current study likewise believe that D & B is the most cost-efficient procurement alternative. There have been a significant amount of studies regarding project performance in USA and UK . (Konchar & Sanvido, 1998; Bennett, Pothecary & Robinson, 1996). Mostly, these studies measured some limited aspects of cost, schedule and quality. But taking the present literature on the subject would prove that the performance of a project is so multi-faceted to an extent where there are actually 14 possible performance measures existing.
After an examination of the literature on this topic, it is surprising to note that there is a lack of information regarding whether there is any difference in cost performance of DBB and DB projects. One study particularly concluded that DB offers a cheaper alternative to clients (Rowlinson & Langford, 1986). Later studies concurred with this claim as their results maintain that construction cost of DB projects is lower than DBB (Ling, Khee & Lim, 2000; Konchar & Sanvido, 1998; Ernzen & Schexnayder, 2000). But then, a study conducted in the USA in 2002 have the opinion that there are no statistically significant differences between DB and DBB projects for cost (Thomas, Macken, Chung & Kim, 2002).
Some USA based studies construed that DB projects have a higher chance of being delivered within budget (Molenaar & Songer, 1998; Kluenker, 1996). In the UK, 75% of DB projects were actually completed within 5% of the budget, compared to 63% of traditional projects (Bennett, et al, 1996). There was one study however, that has shown the fact that DB was lagging behind DBB in achieving cost objectives (Bowen, Pearl & Edwards, 1999). There were also other studies that stated that there is actually no existing difference in the cost performance of DBB and DB projects (Rowlinson, 1987; Pain & Bennett, 1988).
It is a fact that it is actually very difficult to investigate which among the two procurement systems is the most cost-effective. After all, clients would not willingly call for the application of both systems in order to discover which is better or cheaper (Ling et al, 2000).
D & B’s Time Performance
Another criterion on which D & B has been favorably noted is operational efficiency. DB projects were found to produce the fastest construction activity. The USA Construction Industry Institute (CII) claimed this fact. This is in comparison to traditional and construction management systems (Krizan, 1997; Thomas et al, 2002). DB projects are found to be 12% faster than traditional projects with total delivery speed being 30% faster and 50% of DB projects fell below 0% schedule growth (Konchar & Sanvido, 1998). Contractors in the UK alleged that the use of DB actually reduces overall project time (Akintoye, 1994; Ndekugri & Turner, 1994; Atkintoye & Fitzgerald, 1995). In Singapore, architects, contractors and clients have come to agree that the usage of DB reduces overall project development and construction time (Ling & Leong, 2002). Both architects and contractors estimated that time savings of 5% to 20% may be achievable using DB (Akintoye, 1994).
In contrast, there have been some studies that argued the fact that a DB project is no faster than a traditional project (Spring, 1993). The reasons for such include longer scope development and team selection stage, longer time needed to draft performance specifications and clients’ brief carefully (Ormerod, 1996) and longer tendering period of up to nine months needed (N.J.C.C. Code of Procedure for Selective Tendering for Design and Build, 1985). In the sense of cost performance, the literature does not show conclusively which procurement system has superior time performance.
D&B’s Quality Performance
Respondents in the current study have also rated quality performance of D & B as favorable compared to other procurement systems. In the USA, most studies conducted by the CII found that there were relatively small differences in the quality of projects procured through DB, DBB and construction management (Krizan, 1997). One particular study held that that DB projects could produce equal and sometimes better quality performance than DBB (Konchar & Sanvido, 1998). In the UK, another study verified that claim as it concluded that DB performs better in meeting quality standards in complex or innovative buildings rather than simple and standard traditional buildings (Bennett et al, 1996). DB projects scored marginally higher in terms of aesthetic quality. This means that DB projects deliver more consistent aesthetic quality than DBB projects. Yet, there are some clients and contractors who believed that that aesthetics quality is compromised in DB projects. This is most especially true in the case of Singapore (Ling et al, 2000). Also, contractors and clients in Singapore also found that DB projects perform well in terms of functional, architectural and technical quality (Ling & Leong, 2002).
But there was a singular study that indicated that quality might be compromised in DB projects (Holt, Olomolaiye & Harris, 1995). It would appear that most owners express more dissatisfaction with DB projects than traditional projects because of the low quality and their inability to meet functional requirements (Rowlinson, 1987).
As in the case of previous performance metrics, the comparison DB projects versus DBB projects remain inconclusive. There still exists a need to elucidate whether the quality of DB projects are actually better, the same or worse than DBB projects.
In USA, UK, Australia and Singapore, the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) and the design-and-build (D & B) systems are the two most commonly used procurement methods. The DBB has been proven advantageous for years as it denotes a familiarity to participants of the construction process. DBB also creates a contractual relationship that have been tested and refined and are actually widely understood. Also, in DBB, the lines of authority, delineation of duties, the concept of responsibility and liability are made clear (Nahapiet & Nahapiet, 1985). In DBB, owners have complete control over the design for the reason that consultants are directly engaged by them (Gordon, 1994). But then again, DBB is not without any fault. These would include vertical fragmentation (Veshosky, 1994), slow take-up of innovation (Yates, 1995), low productivity (Adrian, 1987) and a lack of single point responsibility (Arnison, 1995).
On the other hand, the D & B system provides for a single point responsibility of the contractor (Rowlinson, 1987). This is shown by the idea that owners are able to enjoy a more centralized accountability and authority that some professionals deem more effective than any other system (Greenfield, 1982). In DB, there is an absence of adversarial relationship between contractors and consultants, which is usually seen in DBB projects since designers work under contractors as one team (Doherty & Suddell, 1995). But then, some clients feel that DB projects bear more risk as there is neither price certainty nor high quality and that maintenance issues may not always be considered by DB contractors (Ling et al, 2000).
Chapter 4
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations
The pros and cons of design and build do not provide into details as to why a particulars project, using this design and build procurement, succeeds or fails. The success or failure will only depend on a host of factors ranging from the nature of the project and the people involved
This research was able to determine and examine the critical success factors for Design and Build (D&B) projects in Malaysia. The scope of this research covered practitioners within the Malaysia construction market. The results of the research suggest that the Design and Build procurement system has slowly won ground in the Malaysian construction industry, even besting the traditional and management systems on all evaluation criteria. The success factors that have contributed to its success include 1) certainty of contract sum, 2) certainty of completion time, 3)
certainty of quality, 4) value for money, 5) reduction in project duration, 6) reduction in project cost, 6) minimal project variation, 7) communication improvements, 8) increased productivity, 9) operation efficiency, and 10) least contractual problems – arbitration / litigation.
For future research, the focus areas may include the details of the interaction along the Design and Build process. In providing more detailed feedback about these interactions (e.g. engineer to owner or consultant to owner, etc.), project teams may be given feedback for improvement. More sophisticated research designs may also be considered, integrating demographic (e.g. respondent’s gender and occupation, etc. ) and organizational characteristics (firm size, etc.) that may influence evaluations of effectiveness of D & B.
References
Adeli, H. & Wu, M. (1998). Regularization neural network for construction cost estimation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(1), 18-24.
Adrian, J. (1987). Construction productivity improvement. New York; Elsevier.
Akintoye, A. & Fitzgerald, E. (1995). Design and build: a survey of architects’ views. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2(1), 27-44.
Akintoye, A. & Fitzgerald, E. (2000). A survey of current cost estimating practices in the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 161-172.
Akintoye, A. & Mcleod, M. (1997). Risk analysis and management in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 15 (1), 31-39.
Akintoye, A. (1994). Design and build: A survey of construction contractors’ views. Construction Management and Economics, 12(2), 155-163.
Akintoye, A. (2000). Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 77-89.
Ambrose, M. & Tucker, S. (2000). Procurement system evaluation for construction industry. Journal of Construction Procurement, 6(2), 121-133.
Anumba, C. J. & Evbuomwan, N. F. O. (1997). Concurrent engineering in design-build projects. Construction Management and Economics, 15(3), 271-281.
Arnison, C. (1995). An introduction to the design/build method. In Muir, T., Rance, B. & Spon, F. (eds). Collaborative practice in the built environment, 81-93. London.
Baldwin, A., Austin, S., Hassan, T. & Thorpe, A. (1999). Modeling information flow during the conceptual and schematic stages of building design. Construction Management and Economics, 17, 155-167.
Bennett, J., Pothecary, B. & Robinson, G. (1996). Designing and building a world-class industry. Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction. UK, Reading: University of Reading.
Bowen, P., Pearl, R. & Edwards, P. (1999). Client briefing processes and procurement method selection: A South African study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 6(2), 91-104.
Bresnen, M., Haslam, C., Beardsworth, C., Bryman, A. & Hell, T. (1998). Performance on site and the building client. Chartered Institute of Building Occasional Paper No. 42, Ascot, UK.
Bryman, A. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative research: further reflections on their integration. In Brannen, J. (ed.) Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research, 57-78. Brookfield: Avebury.
Chan, A. & Lam, P. (1995). Novation contract: an innovative variation to design-build, in Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction; Design and Build Projects–International Experiences. School of Building and Estate Management, NUS, Singapore, 197-203.
Chan, A. P. C. (1994). Evaluation of novation contract. Proceedings of the National Construction and Management Conference, Sydney, Australia, 17-18 February, 383-396.
Chan, A. P. C. (2000). “valuation of enhanced design and build system a case study of a hospital project. Construction Management and Economics, 18(8), 863-871.
Chan, A. P. C., Scott, D., & Lam, E. W. M. (2002). Framework of success criteria for design/build projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 120-128.
Chan, A., Lam, E., & Chan, D. (2004). Development of the design-build procurement system in Hong Kong . Architectural Science Review, 47(4), 387-392.
Chan, A.P.C., Ho, D.C.K. & Tam, C.M. (2001a). Design and build project success factors: a multivariate analysis, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127, 2, 93-100.
Chan, A.P.C., Ho, D.C.K. & Tam, C.M. (2001b). Effect of inter-organisational teamwork on project outcome, Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(1), January, Paper No. 21317, 36-40.
Chan, A.P.C., Ho, D.C.K., & Tam, C.M. (2000). Evaluation of integrated procurement systems in Hong Kong, Research Monograph, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 75 pages, ISBN 962-367-286-1.
Chisnall (1997). Consumer behaviour. McGraw Hill Book Company
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Doherty, P. & Suddell, G. (1995). Architects that build: the architect as master builder, in Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction: Design and Build–International Experiences. School of Building & Estate Management and Singapore Institute of Building Ltd, Singapore, 137-142.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Lowe, A. (1996). Management research: An introduction. Sage.
Ernzen, J. J. & Schexnayder, C. (2000). One company’s experience with design/build: labor cost risk and profit potential. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(1), 10-14.
Gordon, C. (1994). Choosing appropriate construction contracting method. Journal of Construction Engineering, 120, 196-210.
Greenfield, S. (1982). Turnkey construction in the United States. ASCE Journal of the Construction Division, 108, 201-210.
Haque, M. E., Alkaabi, N. & Arosha, D.S. (2001). Selection of a right project delivery system: a tabular knowledge base approach. Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Construction Project Management, 29-30 March 2001, Singapore, 471-480.
Hemlin, D. (1999). Contractor’s local experience on design/build projects. Seminar Proceedings on Design and Build Procurement System, January 1999, Hong Kong, 17-26.
Holt, G., Olomolaiye, P. & Harris, F. (1995). A review of contractor selection practice in the UK construction industry. Building and Environment, 30(4), 553-561.
Kerh, S. & Yng Ling, F. (2004). Comparing the performance of design-build and design-bid-build building projects in Singapore. Architectural Science Review, 47(2), 163-168.
Kluenker, C. (1996). The construction manager as project integrator. Journal of Management in Engineering, 12(2), 17-20.
Konchar, M. D., Sanvido, V. E., & Moore, S. D. (1997). The benefits of design/build contracting in the United States. Proceedings of the International Conference on Construction Process Re-engineering, Australia, 14-15 July 1997, 191-201.
Konchar, M.& Sanvido, V. (1998). Comparison of US project delivery systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124, 435-444.
Konchar, M.D. Sanvido, V. E. & Moore, J. (1998). Project delivery systems: CM at risk, design-build, design-bid-build. Research Report 133-11, University of Texas, Austin: Construction Industry Institute.
Krizan, W. (1997). Design-build has got cost, time edge. Engineering News Record, 239(20),16.
Kwong, H. S. (1996). The strategic role of design and build in the procurement process. Keynote Address at Design and Build Symposium, 30 May, 1996, Hong Kong, 1-4.
Lam, E. W. M., Chan, A. P. C. & Chan, D. W. M. (2003a). Potential problems of running design-build projects in construction. Hong Kong Institute of Engineers Transactions, 10(3), 8-14.
Lam, E. W. M., Chan, A. P. C. & Chan, D. W. M. (2003b). A critique of the use of design-build in Hong Kong: its implications for the construction industry. Proceedings of the 5th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, 26-28 August 2003, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 105-119.
Lam, E. W. M., Chan, A. P. C. & Chan, D. W. M. (2003c). Is design-build the preferred option to procure all building projects? Proceedings of the CIB Student Chapters International Symposium–Innovation in Construction and Real Estate, 26-27 Sept 2003, Hong Kong, 33-43.
Lam, E. W. M., Chan, A. P. C. & Chan, D. W. M. (2003d). Searching for Success in Design-Build Projects–A Qualitative Survey of 23 Practitioners. The Second International Conference on Construction (CITC-II), 10-12 December 2003, Hong Kong, 343-348.
Lam, E. W. M., Chan, A. P. C., and Chan, D. W. M. (2003e). Why is design-build commonly used in the public sector–an illustration from Hong Kong. The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 3(1), 53-62.
Lam, E. W. M., Chan, A. P. C., and Chan, D. W. M. (2003f). Perceptions on the application of design-build procurement system in construction. Architectural Science Review, 46(4), 419-425.
Lam, P. T. I. (1990). Report on a critical comparison of the construction procurement and contracting systems in Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. Hongkong: Department of Building and Surveying, Hong Kong Polytechnic.
Ling, Y. & Leong, E. (2002). Performance of design-build projects in terms of cost, quality and time: views of clients, architects and contractors in Singapore. The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 2(1), 37-46.
Ling, Y., Khee, H. & Lim, K. (2000). The reasons why client prefer to procure more projects based on design-bid-build than design and build. Journal of Construction Procurement, 6(2), 135-146.
Lip, E. (2001). Design/Build: evolution or revolution? International seminar on project procurement and cost management: Perspectives from different nations, Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors and Pacific Association of Quantity Surveyors, 23 May 2001, Hong Kong.
Masterman, J. W. E. (1992). An introduction to building procurement systems. London: E & FN Spon.
Mo, J. K. W. & Ng, L. Y. (1997). Design and build procurement method in Hong Kong — An overview, CIB W92 Procurement — A key to innovation. Procurement Systems Symposium, 20-23 May, 1997, Montreal, 453-462.
Molenaar, K. R. (2002). Innovative contract administration: A report of the European contract administration scan tour. International Symposium on Construction Innovation and Global Competitiveness, 185-197.
Molenaar, K. R., Songer, A.D., & Barash, M. (1999). Public-sector design/build evolution and performance. Journal of Management in Engineering, 15(2), 54-62.
Molenaar, R. & Songer, A. (1998). Model for public sector design-build project selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124, 467-479.
Moore, D. R., & Dainty, A. R. J. (2001). Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of performance improvement in UK design and build projects: a call for change. Construction Management and Economics, 19(6), 559-562.
N.J.C.C. Code of Procedure for Selective Tendering for Design and Build. National Joint Consultative Committee, London, 1985.
Nahapiet, H. & Nahapiet, J. (1985). The management of construction projects–case studies from USA and UK. Ascot: Chartered Institute of Building.
Ndekugri, I., & Turner, A. (1994). Building procurement by design and build approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(2), 243-255.
Oppenheim, A. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London, UK: Pinter Publishers.
Ormerod, M. (1996). Subjective quality decisions in multi-parameter bidding procurement systems. In Taylor, R. (ed.) Proceedings of the CIB W92- procurement systems north meets south: Developing ideas, 492-500. Durban, South Africa: University of Natal.
Pain, J. & Bennett, J. (1988). JCT with contractor’s design form of contract: A case study. Construction Management and Economics, 6, 307-337.
Palaneeswaran, E., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2001). Reinforcing design-build contractor selection: A Hong Kong perspective. Hong Kong Institute of Engineers Transactions, 8(1), 7-12.
Quatman, G. W. (2001). Design-build for the professional. Gaithersburg [Md.]: Aspen Law and Business.
Reason, P. & Rowen, J. (1981). Human inquiry: New paradigms for research in the human sciences. Chichester: John Wiley.
Rizzo, J. (1998). Design/build alternative: a contracting method. Journal of Management in Engineering, 14(6), 44-47.
Rowings, J. E., Federle, M. O., & Rusk, J. (2000). Design/build methods for electrical contracting industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(1), 15-21.
Rowlinson, S. & Langford, D. (1986). The contractor as designer. In Proceedings of IABSE workshop, 169-17. Zurich: IABSE.
Rowlinson, S. (1987). Design build–its development and present status. Ascot: The Chartered Institute of Building.
Salkind, Neil J. (2000). Exploring research (4th edn), 336-336. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th edn). London: John Wiley and Sons.
Skitmore, R. & Marsden, D. (1998). Which procurement system? Towards a universal procurement selection technique. Construction Management and Economics, 6, 71-89.
Songer, A. D. & Molenaar, K. R. (1996). Selection factors and success criteria for design-build in the US and UK. Journal of Construction Procurement, 2(2), 69-82.
Spring, M. (1993). Combined honours. Building Design and Build Supplement, 7-10.
Thomas, S., Macken, C., Chung, T. & Kim, I. (2002). Measuring the impacts of the delivery system on project performance-design-build and design-bid-build. Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute.
Veshosky, D. (1994). Portfolio approach to strategic management of A/E firms. Journal of Management in Engineering,10(5), 41-47.
Yates, J. K. (1995). Use of design-build in E/C industry. Journal of Management in Engineering, 11(6), 33-38.
Zikmund, W.G. (2000). Business research methods. Fort Worth: Dryden.
