Fig. 1
Data extraction PRISMA diagram. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Fig. 2
Construction industry’s framework for project delivery (Source: Ahmed and El-Sayegh 2021).
Tab. 1:
Framework for project delivery
| Project delivery framework | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| DBB | – Clearly defined roles – Competitive bidding – Separation of design and construction | – Absence of cooperation – Possibility of ordering changes – Protracted project timetable |
| DB | – One point of accountability – Improved cooperation – Expedited project completion – Possibility of cost reductions | – Restricted owner authority – Possible restrictions on design – Modifications made when building – Restricted competitive bidding |
| CM | – Early participation from the construction manager – Improved communication and collaboration. – Trade contractor selection and bid packaging – Optimisation and budgetary management | – An increase in project management complexity – Possibility of higher project expenses – Possibility of conflicts and lawsuits – Construction manager’s little contribution to the design |
| CMAR | – Heightened intricacy in project management – Possible rise in project expenses – Potential for disagreements and lawsuits – Construction Manager’s minimal design input | – A rise in complexity – Risk of cost overruns – Conflict of interest possibility – Restricted contractor competition |
| IPD | – Cooperation and unity – Early participation and proficiency – Sharing of risk and reward – Enhanced effectiveness and output | – A rise in complexity – Extended project launch – Limited availability of seasoned IPD teams; difficulties in making decisions |
| Public–private partnership | – Access to sector resources and knowledge Risk control – Effective project execution – Funding availability – Service and performance quality | – Both time intensive and complex – Expensive transaction process with possible increases in costs – Restricted authority and adaptability – Possibility of unequal risk distribution |
Tab. 2:
Results of different studies
| Reference | Sample size | Methodology | Research objective | Framework studied | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ghadamsi and Braimah (2016) | Mixed methodology (semi-structured survey and literature review) | To assess how the DBB procurement selection criterion affects the success of the programme in Libya | DBB | The project performance criteria (time, cost and quality) are impacted by 11 of the 12 selection criteria | |
| Ebenezer (2020) | 350 | Quantitative survey conducted by experts in construction | To examine how Nigerian construction industry specialists view the performance quality of DB and DBB | DBB and DB | In terms of performance quality, DB performs better than DBB |
| Abou Chakra and Ashi (2019) | 102 projects | Survey questionnaire | To compare Lebanon’s DBB and DB project delivery methods | DBB and DB | The DBB programmes perform effectively in terms of timeliness, security and ongoing inspection. The database projects, on the other hand, function better in terms of cost, communication, risk mitigation and material storage |
| Peng and Kim (2022) | 55 projects | Interviews that are semi-structured | To compare DMC with DBB in terms of building intensity, time, and cost | DMC and DBB | DMC outperforms DBB in terms of construction performance, time and cost. |
| Yu et al. (2016) | Review of the literature to develop a framework for assessing performance quality | To assess the effectiveness of the DBB delivery mechanism in addition to the DB quality | DBB and DB | ||
| Lu et al. (2017) | 144 | Questionnaire survey | To evaluate the factors that affect database and DBB application cost performance overruns | DBB and DB | The DBB project delivery technique is heavily influenced by the owner’s ability, which might result in cost overruns |
| AL-Smadi and Hndawi (2021) | Literature review | To compare the project delivery approaches of DBB and DB in the Jordanian construction sector | DB and DBB | DB projects are a good way for the Jordanian construction sector to reduce risk | |
| Calahorra-Jimenez et al. (2020) | 41 professionals | Interview survey and literature review | To assess the reasons for cost overruns throughout DBB’s project phase | DBB project | Four elements have been identified as having the potential to lower cost overruns: accountability, goal-oriented selection process, efficient information interchange, and incorporation of the contractor’s experience in the procurement phase. |
| Ogechi (2017) | Four case studies | Research based on case study | To compare the DBB and DB projects’ project-party relationships | DBB and DB | Compared to DBB projects, DB projects have stronger links throughout the project supplier chain |
| Edward et al. (2013) | Secondary data from the Florida Department of Transportation | Quantitative research | To evaluate project delivery strategies in Florida based on their shortest duration and least expensive | DBB and DB | Programmes using DBB work well in terms of cost, whereas programmes using DB work better in terms of time |
Fig. 3
Framework for project delivery.