The impact of project delivery systems, cost minimisation

and project control on construction project success.
Evidence from Ghana

by
GISELA GABA
SEPTEMBER 2013

A dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the Degree of Master of
Science, Built Environment: Facility and Environment Management

University College London

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I give thanks to the Almighty God for granting me the grace, wisdom, courage and
perseverance to pursue my master’s degree.
Secondly I thank my parents Florence and Paul, my sister Pauline and brother Paul for giving
me support and encouragement throughout my studies.
Thirdly I would like to thank Dr. Nathaniel Boso for the giving me guidance and supports
during this dissertation process, and for believing in me. Mr. Peter McLennan –program
director for always proving sound advice and direction in my academic work.
Finally, my greatest appreciation goes to my lecturers for imparting invaluable knowledge to
me during my Masters degree and to all those who played a part in making stay in the United
Kingdom a memorable one.

 
 
 
 
 

  1  
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................................1
Table of contents ......................................................................................................................................2
List of tabels .............................................................................................................................................4
List of figures ...........................................................................................................................................4
List of appenices .......................................................................................................................................4
Abstract.....................................................................................................................................................5
Chapter one .............................................................................................................................................6
1.

Introduction......................................................................................................................................6
1.1. An overview ..................................................................................................................................6
1.2. Research gaps ................................................................................................................................7
1.3. Research aim .................................................................................................................................8
1.4. Research objectives .......................................................................................................................8
1.5. Importance of the study .................................................................................................................9

Chapter two ...........................................................................................................................................10
Background.............................................................................................................................................10
2.1 Definitions ....................................................................................................................................10
2.1.1 Project delivery process ........................................................................................................10
2.1.2 Project success ......................................................................................................................10
2.1.3 Project delivery system .........................................................................................................11
2.2 The construction industry - international perspective ..................................................................14
2.3. Construction industry in ghana ...................................................................................................15
2.4 Previous research .........................................................................................................................16
2.5 Role of the facility manager in project delivery...........................................................................19
2.6 Policy position ..............................................................................................................................19
Chapter three ........................................................................................................................................21
Hypotheses development ........................................................................................................................21
3.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................21
3.2 Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................21
3.3 DBB and DB as independent variables ........................................................................................21
3.4 Cost and control as moderating variables ....................................................................................23
3.5 Project quality ..............................................................................................................................24
Chapter four..........................................................................................................................................25
Research methodology ...........................................................................................................................25
4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................25
4.2 Data collection method ................................................................................................................25
4.3 Data collection instrument ...........................................................................................................26
4.4 Sample frame ...............................................................................................................................26
4.5 Response rate ...............................................................................................................................26
4.6 Characteristics of respondents .....................................................................................................27
4.7 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................28
4.7.1 Reliability test .......................................................................................................................28
4.7.2 Validity test ...........................................................................................................................29
4.7.3 Descriptive analysis ..............................................................................................................30
4.7.3.1 Design build ..................................................................................................................31
4.7.3.2 Design bid build ............................................................................................................32
4.7.3.3 Project control ...............................................................................................................33
4.7.3.4 Cost minimisation..........................................................................................................33

 

2  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

4.7.3.5 Project effectiveness ......................................................................................................34
4.7.3.6 Project quality................................................................................................................35
Chapter five ...........................................................................................................................................37
Findings ..................................................................................................................................................37
5.1 Results of regression analysis ......................................................................................................37
5.2 Plotting the interactions ...............................................................................................................39
Chapter six ............................................................................................................................................41
Conclusion, implications and limitations ...............................................................................................41
6.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................41
6.2 Discussion and implications .........................................................................................................41
6.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research ..........................................................................45
References .............................................................................................................................................47
Appenicies .............................................................................................................................................54
Appendix i: Cover letter for survey questionnaire .............................................................................55
Apendix ii: Survey questionnaire .......................................................................................................56
Appendix iii: Coding and factor analysis of variable measures .........................................................58
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

  3  
 

LIST OF TABELS
 
Table 2.1: Comparison between DBB and DB delivery systems…………………………….12
Table 2.2: Summry of findings on different dimensions and perspective of projects success.18
Table 2.3: Competing strands of public procurement………………………………………...20
Table 4.1: Factor analysis validating research items...……………………………………….29
Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics, correlations and reliability tests……………………………30
Table 5.1: Results of the hypothesis tests…………………………………………………….38

LIST OF FIGURES
 
Figure 1. Stages of a Construction project delivery process…………………………………10
Figure 2. Construction project success model.……………………………………………….11
Figure 3: Design-bid-build project delivery model.………………………………………….14
Figure 4. Design-build project delivery.……………………………………………………...14
Figure 5. Theoretical framework of research model………………………………………….22
Figure 6. Research process…………………………………………………………………...25
Figure 7: Positions held by respondents……………………………………………………...27
Figure 8: Frequency Distribution of Design Build…………………………………………...31
Figure 9: Frequency Distribution of Design-Bid-Build variable……………………………..32
Figure 10: Frequency Distribution of Emphasis on project control Variable………………...33
Figure 11: Frequency Distribution of Cost Minimisation Variable………………..................34
Figure 12: Frequency Distribution of Project Effectiveness Variable………………..............35
Figure 13: Frequency Distribution of Project Quality Variable……………….......................36
Figure 14: Interacion between DBB and DB systems………………………………………..39
Figure 15: Interaction between DB and cost minimisation………………..............................40
Figure 16: Interaction between DB and project control………………....................................40

LIST OF APPENICES
 
Appendix I: Cover letter for survey questionnaire…………………………………………...55
Appendix II: Survey questionnaire…………………………………………………………...56
Appendix III: Coding and factor analysis of variable measures……………….......................58

 

4  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

ABSTRACT
 
Achieving projects success continues to be a challenge for project owners in public sector
organisations, and ambiguity in what defines project success makes it more challenging to
identify specific factors that affect it. The purpose of this study is to develop a theoretical
framework to examine the effects of design-bid-build (DBB) and design-build (DB) delivery
systems on project success from the owner’s perspective. The research investigates the extent
to which project success is determined by DBB and DB delivery systems when project
owners more or less emphasises cost minimisation versus project control. The link between
project success and project quality is also explored. Findings from a study of public sector
organisations in Ghana reveal a significant relationship between DBB and DB systems and
construction project success. The study finds that projects are more effective when the
delivery system in place is a combination of high levels of DBB and low levels of DB. The
study also finds that project effectiveness in the public sector in Ghana is enhanced when DB
is high and when emphasis on cost minimization is high. The study finds that projects are
more successful when high levels of DB are implemented and when owners emphasize higher
levels of control on projects. Thus, cost minimisation and project control do not seem to
influence the effect of DBB on project success. Finally, project effectiveness is found to be
positively associated with high levels of project quality.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  5  
 

CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. An Overview

 
Project delivery systems are critical for achieving project success as they entail an essential
aspects of an organisation’s strategic planning and management processes that seek to
minimise risks and uncertainties. It has been argued that one major factor that often derail
project success is poor management of the delivery system, such that in many occassions
underperforming delivery systems tend to undermine the inevitable uncertainties that need to
be overcome to avoid project failures (Smith, 1999).
The construction industry is one area of project management that has very much been plagued
with project failures. It has been contended that the diverse and multifaceted nature of
construction projects make it more “ difficult to plan for, forecast, manage and control”
(Smith and Jaggar, 2007 p.12), such that decisions taken in the preliminary stages of project
management process are critical to project success (Miller et al, 2000). For example, some
researchers have argued that “decisions made in the initial phases of a project’s life cycle
have a much greater influence on a project’s outcome than decisions made in later phases”
(Miller et al, 2000 p. 60). It has also been established that project success varies from
different perspectives (Davies, 2013) and can be looked at from multiple dimensions such as
achieving project objectives, user satisfaction, operational performance and functionality.
Projects are strategic activities “initiated to create economic value and competitive
advantage” (Shenhar et al, 2002 p. 699), and both large and small organisations in private and
public sectors undertake projects to achieve business goals and objectives. Therefore, the
effective execution and management of a project delivery system (PDS) as mentioned, should
be considered critical, as it has been found to be a major determinant of successful projects
(Doloi, 2012; Chen et al, 2011; Erikson Westerberg, 2010). However, a major concern in
project execution is the extent to which an appropriate PDS selected have long-term effects or
implications on project performance after completion. While there are multiple project
delivery systems [PDSs], design-bid-build (DBB) and design build (DB) are viewed as the
most widely adopted systems by both private and publics sector in the construction industry
(Chen et al, 2010, p. 599; Ameyaw, 2009). Both delivery systems are viewed to have the
potential to deliver owner satisfaction and achieve successful project outcomes. The
6  
 

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

characteristic strengths and weaknesses of both system’s effects on project success may
present an opportunity to project owners to adopt a combination or hybrid of both systems:
that is the impact of one system may reduce the negative effect of the other and inclusion of
other elements like construction management or facility management can improve the success
rate of projects realised though DB and DBB project delivery systems (Miller et al, 2000).
However, high levels of project success can be achieved if the effects of the project delivery
systems on project success are clearly established, and measures are taken by the owner to
eliminate or retain these effects to the benefit of stakeholders (Wang and Huang, 2005).
Studies indicate that the delivery method and the institutional context within which projects
are delivered has important implications for achieving project objectives and project owners
play a significant role in determining project success (Wang and Huang, 2005). These
authors also contend that the institutional context, developed versus developing, with its
related institutional supports and challenges can impinge on the capacity of organisations,
private or public, to attain project success (Ameyaw, Mensah and Osei-Tutu, 2012).

1.2. Research Gaps
 
While some studies have looked at the several project delivery systems and their individual
impacts on project success, what is missing in the literature is the extent to which
combinations of these delivery systems could help aid project effectiveness (or success). Chen
et al. (2010), for example, suggest that there is a crucial need to combine PDSs systems for
superior project delivery success. This call is based on the assumption that both types of
delivery system has strengthens and weaknesses, such that, if well managed and leveraged,
they can compensate each other’s weaknesses for greater project success. Interestingly, the
existing literature is silent on the potential influence of the joint implementation of DBB and
DB delivery sysems on project effectiveness, and as such, this study seeks to address this gap
in the literature by looking at the extent to which DBB and DB, individually and jointly,
influence project effectiveness.
Furthermore, Chen et al. (2011) claim that “If the owner wants to control the project, it is
better to select DBB; if the owner wants to minimize the risk, DB would be a better choice”.
This later argument could be taken to imply that owner expectations and emphasis on cost
minimisation versus control of projects may act to facilitate or inhibit the extent to which any
one delivery system is perceived to affect project success. Interestingly, the mechamism that
explains this process, and empirical evidence supporting suggestions by Chen and colleagues’
  7  
 

scanty. Therefore, this study aims to examine the extent to which effect of DBB and DB
delivery systems on project success are moderated by owner emphasis on control projects and
owners’ emphasis on minimizing cost.
Several scholars have also raised concerns regarding the validity of transfering knowledge of
project management from Western developed contexts to non-Western developing economy
contexts (e.g. Hoskinsson et al., 2000). The theoretical basis for this concern is that the
institutional context in developed nations and strikingly different from the institutional setting
in developing nations (Arnold and Quelch, 1998). For example, conditions in developed
nations, where the vast majority of empirical studies have been conducted on project delivery
system have been conducted, are advanced with modern sophisticated project delivery and
tracking systems. Yet, in developing nations, especially those in African nations such as
Ghana, institutions supportive of efficient project delivery (e.g. auditing system, modern
technology, and courts) are weak and complicated with poor enforcement of rules of business
transactions. In this respect, this study argues that it would be erroneous to simply transpose
know of project delivery systems in developed nations to developing nations with undertaking
thorough empirical assessment. Accordingly, the third purpose of the current study is to
investigate the project delivery systems and the contingency factors considered in the context
of public sector organisation in Ghana, a developing nation south of the Sahara.

1.3. Research Aim
 
In sum, the study’s aim is to explore the effects of DBB and DB systems on construction
project effectiveness under differing levels of owner’s emphasis on cost minimisation and
project control. The study also looks at how project effectiveness influence project quality
under the assumption that project quality activities such as turnover quality, system quality
and equipment quality levels are of ultimate importance to project owners. The study’s
theoretical framework, is therefore, investigated in public sector organisations in Ghana,
providing opportunity to look at the relationships from developing economy perspectives.

1.4. Research objectives
 
Thus, the specific objectives of the current study are threefold:
a.

Examine the extent to which DBB and DB project delivery systems influence project

success, looking at success from an effectiveness and quality perspective;
b.

Investigate the extent to which owner emphasis on cost minimisation and control

hinder or increase the effects of both systems on project success; and
8  
 

Gisela Gaba
c.

September 2013

Look at how this phenomenon unfolds in a developing country like Ghana

1.5. Importance of the Study
 
The theory of project delivery is a universal phenomenon that plays a major role in a nation’s
development and growth. The amount of financial and non-financial resource lost to failed
projects continues to increase annually in both developed and developing worlds. Since the
1980’s till present, attempts have been made by academics and industry professionals to
define and redefine project success (DeWit, 1988) identify critical success factors (Atkins,
1999) and key performance indicators (KPIs) of success (Chan and Chan, 2004; Toor and
Ogunlana, 2010) to achieve project success, develop quantitative models for selecting the
right PDS (Chen et al, 2010) and suggest management system for project success (Erridge and
McIlroy, 2002). Various dimensions have been explored, but it is an established fact that the
ambiguity of project success (Chan and Chan, 2004) poses a challenge to various stakeholders
including project/facility managers.
However, very little evidence exists on the impact a PDS has on project success with respect
to overall project quality. This study aims at developing a framework, which investigates the
relationship between PDSs like DBB and DB systems have on project success, when owner’s
(i.e. project managers) emphasizes on minimising cost and maximising control of the delivery
process. This present an opportunity for project/facility managers in developing economies
like Ghana and other parts of the world to make informed decision when selecting PDSs
based on its potential outcome of interaction with management function like control and
efficiency.
The remainder of the study is organised as follows. In Chapter two, a the existing literature is
assessed to determine the extent to further explain the gaps in the literature regarding the
project success outcomes of DBB and DB delivery systems. Chapter three focuses on
explaining the specific relationships studied by presenting specific arguments in support of
the study’s hypotheses. Chapter four provides details of the methodological approaches and
data collection activities undertaken. Chapter five presents analyses undertaken whereas
Chapter six discusses the implications and limitations of the findings from the study.

  9  
 

CHAPTER TWO
 

BACKGROUND
2.1 Definitions
2.1.1 Project delivery process
A project process is defined as the key sequential steps followed in project executions, and
the level of detail is dependent of the “development methodology used” (Griffins Enterprise).
Smith (1999) suggests processes involved in undertaking a project rage between six to twelve
steps depending on the type of project. According to a book of knowledge (BoK) in the
construction industry, delivering a construction project involves eight processes as shown in
Figure 1 below. Thus, both DBB and DB systems constitute these processes, but the
difference in level of involvement of the project owners in the various stages, distribution of
tasks and project management responsibility. This is discussed further in chapter 3.
Figure 1. Stages of a Construction project delivery process
Pre-­‐feasibility  

Feasibility  

Design    

DESIGN (Owner)
DESIGN (Contractor)

Contrant/  
Pocurement  

implementation  

Commissioning  

Hand  Over  

Operation  

BID
BUILD (Contractor)
BUILD (Contractor)

Adapted from Smith, N. J (1999)

2.1.2 Project success
 
The basic criteria for determining construction project (CP) success has mainly been centred
on quantitative variables such as- cost, time and quality of specification (Atkinson, 1999;
Schenlar et at, 2002; Hwang and Lim, 2013; Ameyaw, Mensah and Aurthur, 2012; Toor and
Ogunlana, 2011; Meredith and Mantel, 2010; Yu et al, 2005) as mention earlier, commonly
referred to as the “iron triangle” by Roger Atkinson (Atkinson, 1999 p.337). But others
criticise the scope as narrow and inadequate since it fails capture non-quantitative and
subjective criteria based on stakeholder perception (Shenlar et al, 2002) and macro economic
benefits such as – operability, functionality, reliability and long-term gains (Mollaoglu-

 

10  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

Korkmaz, Swarup and Reily, 2011; Toor and Ogunlana, 2009b; Shcenlar et al, 2002). Various
studies reveal various critical success factors that influence CP success (Abraham, 2002;
Chen et al, 2010; Hwang and Lim, 2013; Meredith and Mantel, 2010; Yu et al, 2005), which
centre on factors shown in Chau’s (1999) model in Figure 2. The model illustrates the
interconnection between critical success factors in CP.
Figure 2. Construction project success model

Source: (Chau, 1999) Project success
success factors in construction organisations.

model cited in Abraham, (2002 p. 82). Identification of critical

Chua’s (1999) approach to identifying project success as described by Abraham (2002) is
based on levels of impact of the various factors through a process called the “analytical
hierarchy process (AHP)” (Abraham, 2002 p.82). According to his research, the main
determinants of project success are budget performance, schedule performance and quality
performance (Figure 3), consistent with the “iron triangle” theory of cost, time and quality
mentioned earlier. Chen et al (2010) and Hwang and Lim (2013) also adopted the AHP in
their study as listed in Table 2.1, to identify factors that influence selection of project delivery
systems in construction projects in China and to justify the adoption of specific PDS in
construction projects in Singapore respectively. The findings of these studies tell us, project
characteristics, contractual agreements, projects participants and interactive processes
influence the 3 main determinants of projects success as shown in Figure 2.

2.1.3 Project delivery system
 

A project delivery system is a framework “designed to achieve the satisfactory completion of
a construction project from conception to occupancy” (CMAA, 2012 p.6), and the type of

 11  
 

system adopted is dependent on the objective and type of the project in question. Therefore
based on this definition a PDS can be described as various processes required in materialising
the goals and objective of a client into a project through integrated project team efforts (Chen
et al, 2011).
Table 2.1: Comparison between DBB and DB delivery systems
Project team
Risk

DBB – Design-bid-build
Fragmented roles and Strongly
hierarchical hindering collaboration
Owner bears the greatest risk and
contractor bears the least risk

Process

Linear, distinct and segregated, lack of
knowledge flow

Selection criteria
of contractor

Mostly
based
on
the
lowest
construction /bid price criteria, and
rarely base on best qualification

Control

DB – Design -build
Integration of design and build team,
open and collaborative
Contractor bears greatest risk cost
and construction risk, while owner
bears minimal risk.
Concurrent and multi-level, early
contribution and sharing of project
knowledge.
Commonly based on best value and
qualification criteria, price evaluation
is base on fees and gross cost rather
than construction cost
Contractor bears a maximum control
of design and construction process

Owner bears maximum control of
project delivery and management
whiles contractor bears minimum
control
Adapted from American Institute of Architects California council (2007 p.1)-Integrated project deliver: A Guide
and CMAA (2012) Owners guide to project deliver methods p. 10-11

In table 1, the main characteristics of DBB and DB delivery systems are outlined to give a
clear indication of weaknesses and strengths of the systems.
A PDS acts as a “management function of the owner in project execution” (Chen et al, 2010
p.598), thus the PDS gives the owner added advantage in controlling key success
determinants- cost, time and quality. Based on Table 2.1, it can be said that emphasis on cost
and projecct control can contribut to increase in projects success. Other PDSs emphasize
management functions in project delivery to ensure success, example: contract-management
(CM), construction management at Risk (CMAR), engineering procurement construction
(EPC) and integrated project deliver (IPD) (CMAA, 2012).

2.1.4 Project delivery systems in Ghana
In Ghana, the selection of PDS adopted is mostly dependent on the funding available for the
project (MOFEP, 2010), rather than the application of empirically tested models and
techniques for PDS selection. Complex, objective qualitative methods of selecting PDS, “has
invariably left project managers with no alternative than to make project delivery selection
decisions on the basis of subjective evaluations” (Oyetunji and Anderson, 2006).

 

12  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

Given the historical background of Ghana’s economy1 coupled with challenges of limited
financial resources as in other countries, majority of projects are funded through “internal and
external borrowing, grants from bilateral and multi lateral sources and public-privatepartnerships” (MOFEP, 2010 p.5). The terms and conditions of financial agreements linked to
these funds have led to an increase in the adoption of DB system as the “better alternative”
(Asomoa-Amono, 2010 p.4), which eliminates benefits of competition and market forces.
The DBB is predominantly used in government funded project delivery in accordance with
Ghana’s Public Procurement Law 2003 guidelines (Act 663), to ensure accountability,
transparency, but studies reveal an increase in cost overruns, delayed completion,
unsatisfactory outcomes and unmet project objectives (Ameyaw, 2008). Thus, the adoption of
DB systems is deemed a solution to the limitation of DBB2 in construction project delivery
(Ameyaw, 2009).
“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”
(Oyetunji and Anderson, 2006).

2.1.5 Traditional (DBB) project delivery System
In DBB systems “the owner acts as the general contractor/construction manager on its own
project” (AIA, 2007 P.44), the design and construction service are contracted to separate
entities as shown in Figure 3. This is characteristic of DBB systems are known to result in
implantation issues (Hale at al, 2007). It “involves three sequential phases” (CMAA, 2012) as
shown in Figure 1 earlier: the design, bidding and build phases. It has been proven to offer
some advantage in terms of accountability, transparency and control, and also securing good
market value, which has made it a more frequently adopted option by public sector
organisation (Trauner consulting service, 2007). Doloi (2012) and AIACC (2007) argue that
the DBB system are “complex, highly competitive, costly and time consuming” (Doloi, 2012
p.317; AIACC, 2007 p.44), and various studies attest to this (Frimpong, Oluwoye, Crawford,
2003; Ameyaw, 2008; Mustapha, 2013)

2.1.6 Design-build (DB) delivery System
The DB project delivery system has been in existence since the 19th century, but has been
described as a modification and alternative to the DBB system (AIACC, 2007; Chen et al,
                                                                                                               
1  Anvuur

and Kumaraswamy, (2006). Taking forward public procurement reforms in Ghana  

2  Ameyaw  (2009)  

 13  
 

3.0 Project Delivery Methods
Description

3.1 Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

The design-build (DB) project delivery system has grown in popu
the industry as a solution for addressing the limitations of other
2010).
The
adoption
of
this
system
by
public
sectorbenefit
organisation
in Ghana of
hashaving
grownone
over
the responsible fo
primary
is the simplicity
party
Description
project.
While
the otherindelivery
past decades in parallel with the increaseofofthe
private
sector
involvement
project systems
delivery often give rise
participants,
the method
owner acting
as referee (or party
The Design-Bid-Build system remains the project
most frequently
usedwith
delivery
for construction
(Ameyaw, 2009; Doloi, 2012)). “DB is characterised by a single point of responsibility for
many ofathese
disputes
become
team
issues which ma
projects. Using this method, the owner engages
designer
to prepare
theinternal
design DB
of the
project,
both
designconstruction
and construction
activities”
(AACC, 2007 The
p.47)designer
shown inmay
Figure
and hasadditional
been
including
drawings,
and specifications.
also4,provide
Under this system,
the owner contracts
with a DB team, which
servicestoincluding
investigation,
permitting,
right-of-way
purchase
documents,
proven
be more environmental
efficient in delivering
construction
compared
to DBB
contractor
and projects
a designer,
a contractor
withsystems
a designer as a subco
hearings for public approval, and submissions
for
project
funding.
contractor
as a subcontracted
entity,
or abut
single firm capab
(Hale et al, 2009; Asomoa-Amono, 2010).with
DB aallows
form minimal
control by the
owner,
and construction. Since contractors are most comfortable in t
Once completed,
thetransfer
bid package,
including
the
design
and2007
bidder’s
information
packet,
allows
for maximum
of “project-based
(AIACC,
p.47) they
to theusually
design-build
capitalrisk”
in performing
projects,
are the islead membe
presented to interested contractors, who variation
prepare and
submit
their
bids
for
the
work.
The
owner
structure,
known
as fee-paid d
team. The outcome of project quality is dependentofonthe
thetypical
clarityDB
of team
owner’s
design criteria
will select a contractor, usually based on engaging
the lowesta responsive
responsible
bid (for
mostdesigner
all
developer, and
which
then selects
its own
and c
and
the
competence
of
the
design-build
team.
According
to
Xia
(2010),
various
variations
of
public work), or some hybrid of price and technical
merit.
The
selected
general
contractor
will
then
formulated, the DB team performs the complete design of the
execute
contracts
with
subcontractors
to
construct
various
items.
The
contractor
the DB system possess different strengths preliminary
and
weaknesses
thus
having presented
clear
project
scope
or specialty
design
by objectives
the
owner. is
responsible for constructing the facility in accordance with the contract documents. The designer
would
help
determine
the system
to adopt
(Xia,
2010).
At
some
point
early intothe
process,about
through
prescribed
typically
maintains
limited
oversight
of the
work
and
responds
questions
the adesign
on process
fixed
price
to complete
the design
of the facility.
behalf of the owner. If a CM is not involved
in the
process,
the designer
may and
also construction
assist the owner
is
then
responsible
for
construction
of
the
project,
and
for all coor
in administering
the project
construction
contract,
determination
of project progress,
Figure
3. Traditional
delivery
model including
Figure
4. Design-build
project for
construction.
validation of interim payments made to the
general contractor.
delivery model

Source: CMAA Owner’s guide to project delivery methods (2012) p. 12 &21
Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis
Since the design-build team is working together from the outset,
TheThe
DBB delivery
method Industry
has been the
standard deliveryperspective
method for many years. This method
2.2
Construction
- International
save time and money. However, the advantages of the system are
gives the   owner reliable price information for the project before construction starts. With
control and involvement by the owner and other stakeholders. Ac
proper
design oversight
of the
project, development
costs are somewhat
predictable
for
The
construction
industryand
is budgeting
a visible part
oftotal
atocountry’s
andthe
cuts
across
owner
verify that
it is receiving
best
valueallfor its money w
the owner once the bids are received. In DBB, the owner has more control over the design
transparency
in the
sectors of the economy (Smith and Jaggar,
2007) and
“ DB
the team.
procurement route chosen
content, relative to other delivery methods.
significantly impacts successful project outcomes” (Doloi, 2012 p.317). A number of internal
However, this method typically involves a longer time period to execute, in that construction
and
factors
been identified
to affectphases
successful
project delivery
operations
mayexternal
not begin
until have
the design
and procurement
are complete.
DBB isand
prone
to creating
21

Owner’s
Guideprojects
to Project Delivery
Methods
- August 2012 due to
(NAO, 2005; Ren, Kwao and yang, 2012),CMAA
public
sector
are more
complicated

12

the
number
of tostakeholder’s
involved
and Lim, 2013), and the constraints on
CMAA
Owner’s Guide
Project Delivery Methods
- August(Hwang
2012
financial resources and unstructured project delivery system processes (Anvuur,
Kumaraswamy, Male, 2006). This elevates the challenge for project project managers.

 

14  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

In 2010 the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) in Singapore estimated between $21
billion - $27 billion in construction contracts, and between $18 billion and $25 billion in
2011 and 2012 respectively (Hwang and Lim, 2013 p.204). Similarly in England, the cost of
public sector construction projects completed between 2003 and 2008 is estimated £20
million (NAO, 2009 p.6). Needless to say, this confirms the role of construction projects in
economic growth of a country (Hwang and Lim, 2013), and minimising cost is critical.
Globalization has led to participation of international construction bodies in project delivery
in emerging economies like Ghana, this further complicates project delivery processes like
“negotiations, decision-making and problem solving” (Hwang and Lim, 2013 p.204).
Additionally, externalities such as “politics, economy, society and culture, as well as
“dynamic internal risks” (Kim et al, 2007 p.1961) pose challenges in controlling the execution
of PDSs.
Toor and Ogunlana describe the construction industry in Thailand as vibrant, diversified and
fragmented with various approaches of executing projects (Toor and Ogunlana, 2009), this is
not any different from the situation in Ghana and other parts of the world. “Design
complexity, personnel competence for the job, effective planning and control, commitment to
project goals, effective communication between project participants have been identified by
various studies as key factors leading to realisation of successful construction projects (Doloi,
2012; Toor and Ogunlana, 2007 p. 425; Fringpong, Oluwoye and Crawford; Arts and FinchEll, 2012; Dainty, Cheng and Moor, 2003).
Notwithstanding, the ultimate challenge and responsibility lies with industry professionals
and practitioners implementing projects to ensure optimum completion, functionality and
operations of the project facility whiles delivering maximum satisfaction of all stakeholders
(Wang anf Huang, 2005). There is no empirical evidence that relates the effects of PDSs
adopted to the success or failure of construction projects, but it is pointed out that effects of
unintegrated processes/stages and project team efforts influence “optimal project out-comes”
(Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, Swarup and Riley, 2011p.71). PDSs like the DBB method present a
higher possibility of the latter (AIACC, 2007).

2.3. Construction Industry in Ghana
 
The construction industry in Ghana is expanding rapidly, with majority of projects in
infrastructure development (Mustapha, 2013). In 2008 9.73 per cent of the country’s GDP
 15  
 

was invested in the construction industry (Ren, Kwaw and Yang, 2012), from both foreign
and local investors in both private and public sector. Weak public sector institutional support
and ambiguous legislative framework in the construction industry cause project delivery
systems to fail to deliver expected outcomes and stakeholder expectations (Charles, 2006).
The complex nature and uniqueness of construction projects as previously mention amount to
some level of uncertainty and changes during implementation, therefore control of the
delivery process and the owner’s emphasis on critical factors influence the outcome of the
project (Amaeyam, Mensah and Aurthur, 2011).

2.4 Previous Research
 
Studies conducted on determining construction project success reveal that determining project
success varies with every project an perspectives (Davies, 2013), there is no established
framework or specific criterion for judging construction project success which makes it
difficult to measure (Griffin and Page, 1996; Chen et al, 2010; Hughes, Tippet and Thomas,
2003; Schenhar et al, 2003).
Studies confirm that, optimally integrating a PDS and the efforts of project management from
the start, delivers expected project outcomes, particularly the achievement of “sustainability
goals” (Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, Swarup & Riley, 2011p. 71). Way (2005) in his “framework of
soft landings”, introduces a systematic way of ensuring sustainability of projects by
integrating feedback of “continual assessment” of project design into the operation phase
(Way, 2005; BSRIA, 2009 p.8). Therefore in theory, regardless of the PDS adopted, positive
project outcomes should be achieved when projects participants ensure effective project
management practices (De Wit, 1988).
Toor and Ogunlana in their study of problems in large-scale construction projects in Thailand,
reveal that design related problems contribute to project failure (Toor and Ogunlana, 2010).
They go on to suggest that in DBB sytems, where design is executed separately from
construction, “a complete and comprehensive design is critical in the success of implementing
the projec”t (Toor and Ogunlana, 2008 p.426). Abandoned projects, delayed project
completion, high operational and maintenance costs, unsustainable project facilities and
project knowledge gaps are attributed to failed PDSs (Anvuur, Kumaraswamy, Male, 2006;
Ahadzie, Proverbs and Olomolaiye, 2007;Ren, Kwaw and Yang, 2012; Smith and Jaggar,
2007).
 

16  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

Doloi (2012) also identifies key risk attributes that influence cost, time and operational
performance of projects, and they include the “financial structure, government policy and
design complexity” (Doloi, 2012 p.316). He opines that, little emphasis is put on performance
of project facilities after completion due to the focus put on “project evaluation context”
(Doloi, 2012 p.316).
However, De Wit (1988) suggests “it is essential that a distinction is made between project
success and the success of the project management effort” (De Wit, 1988 p.164), where
project success is dependent on the degree to which project objectives are met (i.e. the impact
of the final project outcome), whiles project management success is dependent on meeting
time, cost and quality objectives (De Wit, 1988). Studies on project delivery do reveal
majority of project fail as a result of poor management of PDS (Ren, Kwaw and Yang, 2012),
but studies subsequent to his work integrate both project and project management success to
mean the same due to the evolution of the scope and demand of CP in recent times (Dainty,
Cheng and Moore, 2003). Heravi and Ilbeigi (2012), developed on the DeWits theory by
developing a quantitative model which evaluates project success based on the product success
(effect of the final product) and project management success (meeting cost, time and quality
objectives), and argues that the perspective considered in defining project success play a
critical part (Heravi and Ilbeigi, 2012).
The different dimensions and perspectives of project success identified from existing
literature are listed in Table 2.2. Its concluded that stakeholders perceive success based on
factors considered critical to their area of interest (Diallo and Thuiller, 2004; Griffin and
Page, 1996). For instance, an end users perspective of a successful project is based on
satisfaction derived (Lim and Mohamed, 1999).

 17  
 

Table 2.2: Summry of findings on different dimensions and perspective of projects
success
Authors

Dimension of project success

Perspective of project
success

Model/ technique to
determine success

Haravi
and
Ilbeigi (2012)

Effects of final product
Project management success

Contractor’s perspective

Index-based model
(Quantitative model)

Chinowsky,
Taylor
and
Marco (2011)
Grau, Back and
Prince, (2012)

Effectiveness of project knowledge and
information transfer

Organisation’s
perspective

Project
Network
Interdependency
Alignment (PNIA).

Alzahrani and
Emsley (2012)

Overall project
completion)

Post
construction
evaluation perspective

Mark
(1995)

Post construction occupation
operational performance

and

Operator/
perspective

Logistic
regression
techniques and factor
analysis
Soft landing framework

Lim
and
Mohamed
(1999)
Toor
and
Ogunlana (2010)

Conceptual,
Construction
operational phase

and

Micro
and
perspective

Key performance indicators (KPIs)

Construction
stakeholder’s perspective

Empirical investigation

Hwang and Lim
(2013)

Customer satisfaction
professional liability

Construction participant’s
perspective

Analytical
Hierarchy
Process (AHP)

Ling (2004)

DBB Project performance

Contractor’s perspective

Performance metrics

Toor
and
Ogunlana (2007)

Relationship between critical success
factors

Construction professional

Factor grouping.
COMs of success

Schenhar et al
(2002)

Multidimensional;
(1) Project efficiency, (2) Impact on the
customer,
(3) Direct business and organizational
success,
(4) Preparing for the future
Objective (cost, schedule, performance
and safety) and subjective (quality)
success metrics

Strategic perspective

Project
guidelines

Project
personnel

(CPSS)
Construction
project success Survey
tool

way

Hughes, Tippett
and
Thomas
(2003)

Timely transfer of project knowledge
success

(successful

and

minimal

end

user
macro

management

Conceptual theory

managers

After a critical review of the varoius dimentions listed in Table 2.2, the research evaluates
success based on both objectve (cost, time and quality of specifications) and subjective
criteria (effectiveness and quality) from the owner’s perspective. David Potts (2002) talks
extensively about project appraisals as a technique used to determine the desirability and
feasibility of projects form different stakeholder perspectives (David Potts, 2002): for
instance, from an owner’s perspective, a successful project is one delivered within estimated
time, cost and according to specifications but from a contractors perspective this might be
dependent on profit margins and turn around (Reiss, 1995).

 

18  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

2.5 Role of the facility manager in project delivery
The role of the facility manger in any organization is to provide support services that satisfy
the clients business needs and support the core objective of the organization. Statistics of
projects failing and poor project performance implies the failure of both facility and project
manager to meet their client’s business needs (Brown, Hinks and Sneddon, 2001). The current
role of the facility/project manager:“strategic leader” (Schenhar et al. 2002 p.699) extends
beyond managing operations and processes and providing support services, but involves
executing strategic management strategy in executing project delivery systems to ensure
success (Schenhar et al. 2002). Having maximum control through consistent monitoring and
evaluation of project processes, enables “efficient positioning” (Doloi, 2012p.317) within
project management and allows efficient allocation of resources, sustainable project
performance and optimum project quality, while delivering on direct project objectives
(Meredith and Mantel, 2010; Shenhar et al, 2002). Brown, Hinks and Sneddon (2001) do
argue that, conventional practices and established roles of professionals in the construction
industry hinder best practice in project delivery at the management level (Brown, Hinks and
Sneddon, 2001).

Hence, “the core problem lies with the systems and approaches that are applied to the
management of new building projects rather than any technological or methodological issues
that are unique to construction” (Brown, Hinks and Sneddon, 2001 p.119).
The National audit office’s (NAO) (2011) study on 40 major projects in the United Kingdom
stated that quality of project initiation (planning and design) is “highly predictive of project
success” (NAO, 2011 p.4) over the long term. This supports the theory of this research that,
the PDS adopted can have long-term effects on efficient and effective operations after
completion.

2.6 Policy position
 
In the UK, public procurement of works, products and services cover three main strands as
listed out in Table 2.3 (Erridge and McIlroy, 2002). Commercial, regulatory and social
considerations are taken into consideration when taking decisions on the how, what and who
is involved in the procurement process. Most often the commercial and regulatory aspects of
project delivery drives the delivery process, having more focus put on achieving the cost, time
and specification attributes of the project at the peril of the non-quantifiable aspects like
 19  
 

satisfaction and quality. This can be related to the situation in Ghana. In table 2.3, the last
column lists out the commercial, regulatory and social provision made in Ghana to address
the key themes listed.
Table 2.3: Competing strands of public procurement.
Strand

Key themes

Commercial

Regulatory

Achieved through
(UK)



Value
for
money
Economy
Efficiency
Effectiveness





Competition
Compliance
Transparency
Equality
Accountability




Current
(GHANA)

Competition/competitive
tendering Legislation
Closer relationships with
suppliers/Contractors
Longer contracts (PFI/PPP)
Facilities management

EU
Public
Procurement
Directives
HM Treasury Tendering
Procedures
Organizational
tendering
rules

Competitive/
competitive tendering
Longer
commercial
contract

Public procurement Act
and guidelines
Attorney general and
PPA project approvals
process
MOFEP
-Public
borrowing and project
selection guidelines
Value for money Audit
process.


Social



Public
interest
Employment
concerns
Environment
al policy






Best Value
Contract compliance
TUPE
Social exclusion

Economic development
Green buying guides

situation



Economic
development
Mandatory
content
Inclusion of
suppliers

local
local

Adapted from Andrew Erridge and John McIlroy (2002). Public Procurement and Supply Management
Strategies. Public Policy and Administration 17 (52)

Drawing from the literature review, the operational definition of project success adapted for
this study is focused on two dimensions from the owners’/end-user’s perspective Drawing
from the literature review, the operational definition of project success adapted for this study
is focused on two dimensions from the owners’/end-user’s perspective
1. Effectiveness: An effective project outcome would imply that project objectives are met
(cost, time, specifications and safety), fitness of purpose and maximum end-user
satisfaction. (i.e. functionality and availability (Ling, 2005))
2. Quality: operational performance of final product (i.e. guarantees optimum service
delivery, minimum operational and maintenance costs) (Heravi and Ilbeigi, 2012).

 

20  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

CHAPTER THREE
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Overview
 
This chapter develops a theoretical framework based on deductions made the literature
review, to address research objective of the study. The key variable are extracted from
research objectives listed below, to determine how they relate to each other.
a.

Examining the extent to which DBB and DB project delivery systems influence
project success, looking at success from an effectiveness and quality perspective.

b.

Investigating the extent to which owner emphasis on cost and control hinders or
increases the effects of both systems on project success.

c.

Studying the extent to which project effectiveness serves as a mechanism through
which DBB and DB influence project quality and how these phenomenon unfolds in
a developing country like Ghana

3.2 Theoretical framework
To guide the direction of the study and keep focus on research objectives, a theoretical
framework is developed (Cooper and Schindler, 2010) as illustrated in Figure 5. This was
based on the theory that, the adoption of either DBB or DB delivery systems can positively or
negatively affect the level of project success depending on the emphasis owner’s puts on
either cost minimisation or project control as shown in Figure 5.
To form this theoretical framework, seven variables were identified from the objectives of the
research, and further to this six hypotheses were developed for empirical testing. These
variable are discussed in the following subsections.

3.3 DBB and DB as independent variables
 
The objective of the study is to determine the relationship between DBB and DB and project
success, by investigating whether they predict whether a project is successful or not: making
DBB are DB the independent variables. The DBB and the DB system are the most commonly
adopted systems and according to literature both systems have strengths and weaknesses that
could lead to and increase or decrease in he realisation of a successful project (AIACC, 2007).

 21  
 

Literature suggests that to ensure high level of quality in DBB projects, there should be a
balance between price and qualification selection criteria (Ling, 2005), and adopting DBB
system with an additional project/construction management function increases control over
execution and certain critical aspects which leads to project success (CMAA, 2012). The main
criticism of the DBB system is its failure to meet schedules and cost expectations (Ameyaw,
2009), and a lack of coordination between the design and construction phases (Tenah, 2001).
But Reiss (1995) argues, project objective are achieved based on the type and urgency of the
project and how its objectives are prioritised (Reiss, 1995). The first hypothesis is developed
based on this.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): High levels of DBB delivery system will have a positive effect on project
effectiveness.

Owner  emphasis:  
-­‐  Project  cost  
minimisation  
-­‐Project  Control  
 
H4  
Design  bid  build  
(DBB)    

Design  bid  build  
(DB)    

Combination  of  
DBB  and  DB  

H5  

H1  
Project  success  
 
-­‐Effectiveness    

H2  

H6  

H3  

         Project  Quality  

Figure 5: Theoretical framework of research
On the other hand, the DB system has been identified as an alternative to the DBB system.
Empirical evidence reveals it has delivered more projects within estimated time and budget
and offers higher stakeholder satisfaction in comparison to DBB (Xia and Chan,
2010;Ameyaw, 2009), but Chen et al argues DB does not deliver cost saving as claimed by
other studies, but rather limits the risk borne by the owner (Chen et al, 2010). Advantages of

 

22  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

this system include project coordination due to the combined contracting of design and
construction phase, involvement of contractor in the design phase, which results in better
quality of design. (Tenah, 2001; Trauner consulting service, 2007). Criticisms of the system
include minimal involvement of owner in design and construction, little guarantee of client’s
expectations or technical specification due to the lack of checks and monitoring of on-going
works and the owner is allowed very little control of the process (Tenah, 2001). To determine
the effect of DB systems on project success, the second hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): High levels of DB delivery system will have a positive effect on project
effectiveness.
Miller et al (2000), in his study suggest the simultaneous adoption of multiple project delivery
methods. They argue that both DBB and DB systems can adopted in coherence, to take
advantage of their strengths for greater project success a third hypothesis is developed.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The effect of execution of high levels of both DB and DBB delivery
system result in high project effectiveness

3.4 Cost and control as moderating variables

 
The model of the DBB described in the previous chapter contracts separate entities to execute
the design and construction phase of projects, giving the owner maximum control over project
management, cost and final project outcome. Tenah (2001) describes the execution of DBB as
“sequential” (Tenah, 2001 p.33), which increases the potential for time and scheduled delays
that have cost implications (Meredith and Mantel, 2010). Whereas in DB systems, a single
entity is contracted to execute the design and construction of a project based on owner’s
requirements, meaning the final outcome is to a large extent determined to a large extent by
“competence, comprehension, communication and commitment” (Toor and Ogunlana, 2007
p.425) of contractor’s team. The model of the DB system allows for very little participation of
the owner and majority of the risk is transferred to the contractor (Xia and Chan, 2010).
Further to this, “If the owner wants to control the project, it is better to select DBB; if the
owner wants to minimize the risk, DB would be a better choice” (Chen et al claims, 2010).
The later could imply in this case that, owner emphasis on variables like control and cost may

 23  
 

act to facilitate or inhibit the extent to which the delivery system is perceived to affect project
success (project effectiveness and quality). Hypotheses 4 and 5 are developed to test this.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): The effect of DBB delivery system on project effectiveness will be higher
when owner emphasis is on cost minimisation and lower when owners’ emphasis is on
control.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): The effect of DB delivery system on project effectiveness will be higher
when owner’s emphasis is on project control and lower when owners’ emphasis is on cost
minimisation.

3.5 Project Quality

 
It is argued there is distinction between achieving project/product success and project
management success (DeWit, 1988 and Heravi and Ilbeigi, 2012), where product success is
related to the attributes of the final outcome and project management success is related to
achieving pre-set objectives on cost, time and quality specification. To determine how DBB
and DB systems influence project success, not only in relation to a subjective criteria effectiveness (defined in Chapter 2) but also in relation to post completion success - project
quality. Hypothesis 6 was developed to discover whether project effectiveness was a
mechanism through which DBB and/or DB system can achieve project quality.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): The effect of high levels of project effectiveness (project success) is
related to greater levels of project quality.
In sum, based on literature reviewed six hypotheses were developed to determine the
relationship between independent variable-DBB and DB and dependent variable-project
effectiveness, and the role of moderating variables- cost and control on achieving project
success (effectiveness) in public sector organisation.

 

24  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 

4.1 Overview

 
The research methodology outlines the systematic approach adopted to achieve the objectives
of the research and provide empirical evidence to support it (Cooper and Schindler, 2010). To
undertake this investigation, a quantitative approach was adopted to provide empirical
evidence to explain the relationship between project delivery systems

(DBB or DB)

implemented and key variables identified as critical in achieving project success (i.e. cost
minimization, project control), and how they interact to achieve project effectiveness and high
project (quality success).
The research followed a sequence of steps illustrated flow in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: Research process

Preliminary  
research  on  
topic  

Literature  
review  
and    

Design  of  
survey  
questionnai
res    &  Data  
collection  

Data  
analysis,  
testing  
hypotheses  
&  findings  

Validate  
theoretical  
framework  

Adapted from (Creswell, J. 2003 P.5)

4.2 Data collection method
 
Data gathered for the study was achieved using a questionnaire; which is a survey instrument
(McDaniel and Gates, 2012) commonly used for formal quantitative research. Data collection
was through self-administered questionnaires, which were distributed by hand in the research
environment (Ghana). Taking into consideration the characteristics of research environment
and limited time available to collect data and, hand delivering questionnaires was deemed the
most effective as compare to administering them via Internet or face-to-face interviews which
result in much lower response rates and require more time respectively.

 25  
 

4.3 Data Collection Instrument
Designing the questionnaire for collecting relevant data for the study played a critical part in
the data collection process. To enable respondents to easily understand the questions and
make increase the willingness and ability to answer questions, clear and precise scaledresponse questions were used. This helped capture “measure of intensity of a respondent
answers” (McDaniel and Gates, 2012 p.348) defined by a 7 -point rating scale: 1 indicating
least extremity, importance expectation and 7 representing high extremity, importance
expectation of the statements listed in section 1, 2a and 2b respectively. This gave respondent
a balanced scale of measure. A total of 33 items were contained in the questionnaire
(Appendix II), 29 items measured conceived variables identified and four helped determine
the reliability of respondents. A total of 3 sections were created to capture information needed
to measure conceived variables. Section one contained eight questions focused on DBB and
DB delivery systems and processes involved, section two focused on project objectives
considered key and the level of achievement of these objectives and section three captured
information on individual characteristics of the respondent as a measure to ensure reliability
of respondent’s responses, this is attached in Apendix II.

4.4 Sample Frame
In selecting the sample for the research, characteristics of respondents (i.e. the population of
interest) was taken into consideration (McDaniel and Gates, 2012). Based on preliminary
investigation and context of the research, a representative sample of public sector
professionals was drawn from public sector organisations, departments and ministries.
Specifically focusing on professionals working on projects or with prior experience and
understanding of project delivery systems to ensure reliability of responses. Due to limitation
of resources, the sample frame was predominantly focused on government departments and
sector ministries in the Greater Accra region for the convenience of their geographical
location (i.e. centrally located in the business district of the capital city). In sum, respondents
were drawn from five government ministries: Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Roads and Highways, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Finance and Economic
Planning; three state owned companies and four public agencies (NHS estate management
unit, MOH project management unit and special projects units)

4.5 Response Rate

 

26  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

A total of 120 questionnaires were distributed, with the target of achieving a response rate of
80 per cent, but on completion of the survey 101 valid responses were received, giving a
response rate of 84.2 per cent higher that the set target. This provided adequate data for
statistical inferences for the research. The response rate of 84 per cent, which is very high,
could be as a result of the following factors:
1. Questionnaire were handed out manually to respondents by the researcher with a cover
letter (Appendix I) explaining the purpose of the study.
2. Familiarity of the researcher in dealing with public sector organisations due to prior
business relationships with various sectorial Ministries.
3. Clarity of questions and type of questions used could have influences the respondents
willingness to complete the questionnaires
4. Familiarity of the researcher with working with various sector ministries prior to the
research facilitated distribution of questionnaire and increased access to respondents.

4.6 Characteristics of Respondents
After conducting the survey, total questionnaire retrieved was 101 completed by professionals
working in public sector organisations in Ghana. The breakdown of roles of respondents
included 18.8 per cent directors, 38.6 per cent project managers, 13.9 per cent consultants and
24.8 per cent in the “others” category of project related roles shown in Figur 7. Further
analysis revealed, the average managerial experience of respondent to be 5years, one year
being the minimum work experience and 30 years being the maximum.
Figure 7: Positions held by respondents

Positions held by respondents

26%  
14%  

20%  

Directors    
Project  managers    

40%  

Consultants  
Others  

 27  
 

4.7 Data Analysis
Having cleaned the data collected, including imputation of missing values and recoding of
variables (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007), a series of statistical analysis was performed using
the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) data analysis software to enable
further exploration of the characteristics of the variables understudy to validate the research
theory. In following recommended procedures (e.g, Hair et al., 2006), the following sets of
statistical analyses were carried out:
1. Validity and reliability of questions (items)
2. Summation of the items to create new variables for further inference.
3. Calculation of correlation and descriptive statistic values
4. Moderated regression analysis
5. Mediation analysis of variable

4.7.1 Reliability test
 
First, reliability of all multi-item constructs (that is constructs that were measured with
multiple questions or statements) was undertaken. Hair et al. (2006) and Nunnally and
Berstein’s (1994) recommendation for the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was used to estimate the
reliability of the items. Cronbach’s Alpha analyses the internal consistency of sets of items
that are purported to measure a specific unobservable variable (Nunnally and Berstein, 1994).
High values of Alpha values (α >.60) are recommended. Accordingly, all variables were
tested to ensure that they exhibited high alpha values. Where a specific variable contributed to
poor alpha value, that variable is deleted accordingly. Consequently, Table 4.1 was produced
to show the level of reliability of each multi-item construct. As Table 4.1 shows, all variables
exceed the recommended cut off range for reliability. The lowest alpha value is .605 (project
effectiveness) and the highest is .873 (design build). Furthermore, an inspection of Table 4.1
indicates that where sets of variables are required to correlate highly, this was uncovered (e.g.
design build versus Design Bid Build). Thus, all variables can be viewed as internally
consistent throughout.

 

28  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics, correlations and reliability tests
Variable
1 Managerial experience
2 Company type
3 Design Build

Standard
Mean Deviation
5.77 3.827
4.871 1.405

4 Design Bid Build
5.272 1.184
Emphasis on Project
5 Control
5.695 .995
Emphasis
on
Cost
6 Minimisation
5.356 .821
7 Project Effectiveness

5.059 1.353

8 Project Quality

5.670 1.102

1
2
.266** .081
.074
.141
.025
.102
.118
.398** .172
.322** .152
.260** .102

3

4

5

6

7

8

.873
.559** .781
.375** .488** .812
.299** .217*

.309** .715

.184

-.023

.122

.612** .605

.119

.024

.249*

.602** .509** .725

Note:
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Inter-variable correlations are reported at the lower half of the diagonal, and the alpha reliability values are reported in the
diagonal.

4.7.2 Validity test
Having demonstrated the reliability of the constructs’ measurement items, there was a need to
show that the variables are also valid (Hair et al., 2006). The psychometric literature
recommends that convergent and discriminant validities show be established (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994). Thus, to assess the validity of the measures all items were further examined
using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in SPSS. The purpose of the factor analysis was to
determine the convergent and discriminant validity of the items used to measure each variable
(Hair et al., 2006) and also sum up variable measures(items) into factors (McDaniel and
Gates, 2012 p.616). That is to determine whether the various items used in the questionnaire
are able to measure factors listed in Table 4.1, this allowed for purification of the preliminary
item for further validation. As shown in Table 4.2, it is clear that 21 items out of the 29 used
(Appendis III) in the questionnaire load significantly on its respective factor (or variable) and
each item also discriminates from other variables they are not required to load on, thus,
confirming convergent and discriminant validity.

 29  
 

Table 4.2: Factor analysis validating research items

1

Composite
Variables/
Factors
Design Bid Build

Questions (Items)

Factor
Loading

1.

.697

2.
3.
4.
2

Design
(DB)

Build

1.
2.
3.

3

Project Control

4

Cost minimisation

5

Effectiveness

6

Project Quality

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.

Normally use two or more solicitations and procurement steps to
complete one construction project
Often enter into a contract with an architect/engineer firm that
provides design services based on the requirements we provide
Typically ask an architect/engineer firm for deliverables
including plans and specifications for the construction of the
project
Normally use these deliverables as a basis to make a separate
contract with a construction company
Award a contract to one company who will both design and
build a project for us
There normally is only one procurement step to select one
construction company to complete a project
Often allow one contract between us and one construction
company
Meeting or exceeding schedule objectives
Emphasizing operational safety in the design philosophy
Emphasizing safety in construction
Attaining high quality of the constructed facility
Minimizing contractor scope changes
Unit cost
Cost growth
Schedule growth
Development cost
Construction speed
Delivery speed
System quality
Equipment quality
Meeting quality specifications

1.011
.698
.
730
.717
.760
.799
.542
.761
.879
.643
.618
.668
.553
.655
.643
.667
.637
.673
.671
.701

4.7.3 Descriptive Analysis
 
Having shown that the variables were both reliable and valid, new scores were then created
from the original observed variables. Table 4.1 shows the new variables and their respective
means and standard deviations. Descriptive analysis of each scale was carried out to show that
each scale was normally distributed for hypothesis testing purposes (Hair et al., 2006).
Descriptive analysis was performed to determine whether the means values of variables were
approaches a normal distribution. The values for each variable were subject to descriptive
analysis focusing on skewness or range of the data distribution. The analysis revealed the
values of the variables were fairly normally distributed as shown in figures 7 to 12. Therefore,
the scales can be used to perform hypothesis testing.

 

30  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

4.7.3.1 Design Build
The frequency distribution of DB variable measure is shown in Figure 8, with mean value of
4.871 and standard deviation of 1.405 with no missing values. The figure shows a fairly
normal distribution of sample data, thus implying the items measured can be used in carrying
out a regression analysis

Figure 8: Frequency Distribution of Design Build

 31  
 

4.7.3.2 Design Bid Build
 
The frequency distribution of DBB variable measure is shown in Figure 9, with mean value of
5.272 and standard deviation of 1.184. The figure shows the values are fairly normally
distributed, implying that a regression analysis can be successfully carried out.

Figure 9: Frequency Distribution of Design-Bid-Build variable

 

 

32  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

4.7.3.3 Project control
 
The frequency distribution of the project control variable measure is shown in Figure 10, with
mean value of 5.70 and standard deviation of .995. The figure shows the values are fairly
normally distributed, implying that a regression analysis can be successfully carried out

Figure 10: Frequency Distribution of Emphasis on project control Variable

4.7.3.4 Cost Minimisation
 
The frequency distribution of the cost minimisation variable measure is shown in Figure 11
below, with a mean value of 5.36 and standard deviation of .821. The figure shows the values
are fairly normally distributed, implying that regression analysis can be successfully carried
out.
 33  
 

Figure 11: Frequency Distribution of Cost Minimisation Variable
4.7.3.5 Project Effectiveness
The frequency distribution of the project effectiveness variable measure is shown in Figure
12, with mean value of 5.06 and standard deviation of 1.353 with no missing values. The
figure shows a fairly normal distribution of sample data, thus implying the items measured
can be used in carrying out a regression analysis.

 

34  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

Figure 12: Frequency Distribution of Project Effectiveness Variable
 
4.7.3.6 Project quality
The frequency distribution of frequency variable measure is shown in Figure 13, with mean
value of 5.67 and standard deviation of 1.102 with no missing values. The figure shows a
fairly normal distribution of sample data, thus implying the items measured can be used in
carrying out a regression analysis.

 35  
 

Figure 13: Frequency Distribution of Project Quality Variable

 

36  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

CHAPTER FIVE
 

FINDINGS
 

5.1 Results of Regression Analysis
After demonstrating that the items used to measure each construct are reliable, valid and
normally distributed, hierarchical moderated regression analysis was undertaken using
ordinary least square approach, in line with the literature (Hair et al., 2006). First of all, to
analyse the effect of DBB and DB on project effectiveness, multiple regression analyses was
used in Model 1. Then secondly, bivariate regression was used to analyse the effect of project
effectiveness on project quality in Model 3, which is considered the final outcome of project
success. Finally, to examine how DBB and DB interact with each other, and to test the extent
to which owners’ emphasis on project cost minimisation (i.e. efficiency) versus project
control, hierarchical moderated regression was used. The use of multiplicative interactions in
regression analysis has the potential to introduce multicollinearity (i.e. increase correlation
between the independent variables), which makes interpretation difficult. Therefore, before
the moderated regression was undertaken, all the independent variables were mean-centred
(i.e. the means values were subtracted from the originally averaged variables) (Aiken and
West, 1991). As can be seen in Table 5.1, the variance inflation factors (VIF) of all variables
included in the moderating effect analysis remain substantially below the minimum cut-off
point of 10 (Hair et al., 2006).
To examine the hypotheses themselves, three regression models were estimated. The first
model looked at the direct effects of DBB, DB, cost minimisation and control on project
effectiveness. Model 1 produced an R2 value of 41%, which is a sufficient explanation of the
variance in the dependent variable and an additional 8% variance was explained when Model
2 was estimated (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2012). Looking at Table 5.1 further, it can be seen
that DBB has negative relationship with project effectiveness (β = -.225; t-value = -2.223; p <
.05), while DB has a significant positive relationship with project effectiveness (β = .126; tvalue = 1.290; p < .10). Therefore, it could be argued that DBB and DB have opposing effects
on project effectiveness, which is interpreted as, when the effectiveness of one system
increases, the effectiveness of the other system decreases. This could therefore be taken to
mean, when both system are implemented simultaneously, they provide competing
implications for project managers.

 37  
 

While the above results may be taken to imply H1 is rejected and H2 is supported, one also
needs to be cautious in drawing conclusions from the above results due to the nature of H3, H4
and H5. For example, it can be said that H1 and H2 are part of H3, such that if H3 is supported,
H1 and H2 are rejected. Looking at Table 6 again, the combined effect of DBB and DB on
project effectiveness is negative and significant (β = -.192; t-value = -1.464; p < .10), which
can be taken to mean that H1, H2 and H3 are all rejected. However, looking at the moderating
impacts of cost minimisation and project control on DBB/DB – project effectiveness
relationship, some more interesting findings are uncovered.
Table 5.1: Results of the hypothesis tests

Project effectiveness

Collinearity Statistics
Projectquality Tolerance VIF

Model 1

Model 3

β
DBB
-.225
DB
.126
Emphasis on cost minimisation .626
Emphasis on Control
-.009
DB x DBB
DBB x Cost minimisation
DB x Cost minimisation
DBB x Control
DB x Control
Project effectiveness
Model fit characteristics
R2 (% of variance explained) .410
∆R2 (Change in % of variance) -

Model 2
t

β

t

-2.223
1.290
7.428
-.095

-.096
.090
.592
.099
-.192
.081
-.136
.177
.259

-.826
.825
7.055
.983
-1.464
.771
-1.457
.862
1.385

β

.509
.482
.082

t
.598

1.674

.649
.865
.712
.330
.521
.655
.135
.163

1.541
1.156
1.404
3.032
1.919
1.527
7.426
6.135

5.891

.260
-

First, focusing on the effect of cost minimisation, it was found that the effect of DBB and cost
minimisation interaction on project effectiveness was non-significant (β = .081; t-value =
.771; p>.10), while the DB and cost minimisation interaction is significantly negative (β = .136; t-value = -1.457; p<.10). Further to this, the effect of the interaction between DBB and
project control is positive but non-significant (β = .177; t-value = .862; p>.10), whereas the
effect of the interaction between DB and control on effectiveness is positive and significant (β
= .259; t-value = 1.385; p<.10). These later findings imply that H1 and H4, corresponding to
the effect of DBB on effectiveness are consistently rejected under all conditions considered.
Thus, high levels of DBB lead to decreases in project effectiveness (i.e. project success), even
when owners emphasis either cost minimisation or project control.

 

38  

Gisela Gaba

September 2013

On the other hand, high levels of DB are found to be related to increases in project
effectiveness and these positive effects further is amplified when owners’ emphasis on control
is greater and when owners’ emphasis on cost minimisation is lower. Thus, H2 and H5 are
supported. In sum, the study concludes that the impact of DBB and DB on project success is
not simply a matter of a direct relationship, but rather a question of how these project delivery
systems are managed together, and the extent to which owners emphasises cost minimisation
versus control.
Finally, the study looks at the extent to which project success or effectiveness is related to
project quality levels. From Table 5.1, it can be seen that project effectiveness explains 26%
variation in project quality, and its effect on project quality is significant at 1% level (β =
.509; t= 5.891; p<.01). Thus, H6 is strongly supported, suggesting that higher levels of project
effectiveness are related to greater levels of project quality.

5.2 Plotting the interactions
The significant interaction effects are now reported in figures 14 to 16 below. Looking at
Figure14, it is obvious that the best fit between DBB and DB is when DBB is high and when
DB is low, suggesting that at least within the context of the public sector organisations in
Ghana, projects are more effective when the delivery system in place is a combination of high
levels of DBB and low levels of DB.
Figure 14: Interaction between DBB and DB delivery systems
5

Project effectiveness

4.5
4

3.5
Low DB
High DB

3

2.5
2

1.5
1
Low DBB

High DBB

 39  
 

In the interaction between DB and cost minimisation, the best scenario for project
effectiveness in the public sector in Ghana is when DB is high and when emphasis on cost
minimization is also high as shown in Figure 15 below.
Figure 15: Interaction between DB and cost minimisation
5

Project effectiveness

4.5
4
3.5
Low Cost
minimisation
High Cost
minimisation

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Low DB

High DB

Finally, from the interaction plotted in Figure 16, it can be said that projects are more
successful when high levels of DB are implemented and when owners emphasize higher
levels of control on projects
Figure 16: Interaction between DB and project control
5

Project effectiveness

4.5
4
3.5
3

Low Control

2.5
High Control

2
1.5
1
Low DB

 

High DB

40  

 

CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to investigates the individual and joint impacts of DBB and
DB on project effectiveness (project success) under differing levels of owner’s cost
minimisation and project control emphasises and how project effectiveness eventually relates
to project quality outcome. This theoretical framework is studied within the context of public
sector organisations in Ghana. The argument put forward is that, the appropriateness of a
PDS adopted can positively or negatively affect project success dependent on whether or not
their joint implementation is preferred to implementation of individual PDS, and owner’s
emphasis on achieving cost minimisation or project control in construction projects. Findings
indicate that DBB and DB combination is strongly related to high levels of effectiveness
(project success), with latter also positively related to quality outcomes of construction
projects. Findings also indicate that projects are more effective when the delivery system in
place is a combination of high levels of DBB and low levels of DB. The study also finds that
project effectiveness in the public sector in Ghana is enhanced when DB is high and when
emphasis on cost minimization is high. The study finds that projects are more successful
when high levels of DB are implemented and when owners emphasize higher levels of
control on projects. Thus, cost minimisation and project control emphases do not seem to
influence the effect of DBB on project success. Theoretical, managerial and policy
implications of these findings are discussed below.

6.2Discussion and Implications
Key findings reveal that DBB systems have direct negative effect on project success whiles
DB system has a direct positive affect on project success, confirming the theory that the
appropriateness of a PDS adopted directly impacts the outcome of the project (Chen et al,
2010). The finding that DBB negatively influence project success and DB having a positive
impact implies that the two delivery systems interact with each other to influence project
success outcomes. Over and above the direct effects, when the interaction term of the two
delivery systems are examined, a significant interaction effect was uncovered. These findings
suggest the effect of one system influences that the impact of the other system, confirming
Chen et al. (2010) contention that the two traditional delivery systems work in tandem to
41  
 

driver project success. Thus, a theoretical implication here is that when the effectiveness of
one system increases, the effectiveness of the other system decreases and the vice versa.
When both systems are adopted simultaneously the outcome is superior relative to when the
systems are adopted in isolation.
A practical implications for project managers is that, adopting high levels of DBB systems
(i.e. contracting design and construction services independent of each other, selecting
contractor solely based on lowest bid criteria according to the norm without
construction/project management functions in place) will have negative effects on project
success. On the contrary high levels of DB systems with emphasis on control relate to
increase in project success. This implies that contracting of a single entity in executing design
and construction phased has positive effect in project delivery, but the project manager must
ensure participation in both design and construction phases to achieve project success.
Focusing on reducing cost in DB systems, can lead to the contractor providing inferior
designs and low quality construction service, which will negatively affect project
effectiveness and overall quality.
Key finding if the study supports the theory that PDSs are directly related to project success
and the final quality outcome of projects (Chen et al, 2010), and further illustrates there could
positive benefits when these systems are implemented together to complement each other
(Miller et al, 2000). Additionally, when factors like cost minimisation and project control are
emphasised by the owner in the implementation process, the effects could be greater. Chen et
al suggests that PDSs provide owners channel to control and manage the execution process
(Chen et al, 2010), and the significant effect of DB on project success when project control is
high proves this as H5 was supported. Drawing from the finding we realise that DB has a
positively significant effects on project success when there is moderated by project control.
The same cannot be said for DBB; its interaction with project success is negative and when
moderated by cost or control does not yield a significant effect: hence the rejection of H1 and
H4. This can be explained the characteristics of the DBB system that appoints separate
entities to execute design and construction phases, which increases the possibility of gaps or
lapses in project execution resulting in undesired project outcomes poor project coordination
and delayed execution of project phases (AIACC, 2007; Tauner consulting service, 2007;
CMAA, 2012). The implication for manager is some delivery systems like the DB offer better
medium for owners to achieve a high level of project success when the owner’s objective is
42  
 

 
to control aspects of the delivery system. Meredith and Mantel (2010) emphasizes the need
for a project management to ensure efficient allocation of resources and control project
activities (Meredith and Mantel, 2010).
Looking at the effects of combined interaction of DBB and DB systems with project
effectiveness, the best scenario to adopt is when high levels of DBB and low levels of DB are
implemented in a project. From the analysis it was revealed that simultaneously
implementing DBB and DB present competing implications to project managers, therefore
there should be a balance or. This supports Ibbs et al’s (2003) assertion that “no project
delivery system can be deemed appropriate for a specific project” (Ibbs et al, 2003 p.382),
and the adoption of multiple project systems “allows for greater public benefits” (Miller et al,
2000 p.66). Implication here is, both systems possess positive attributes that when managed
can contribute to effective projects, therefore it will be presumptuous of public sector owners
to select one system over the other without considering the benefits of implementing both in
DBB and DB in varying proportions.
Looking at the moderating roles of emphasis on cost minimisation versus project control on
DBB and DB and how this affects project effectiveness, very interesting observation were
made in relation to DB system. Findings from the study reveal that cost minimisation
negatively moderates achieving high levels of project success when high levels of DB are
implemented with high emphasis on cost minimisation. From literature, it’s gathered that DB
systems restrict the involvement of owners (Table 2.1) in the design and construction phases
and in controlling cost, project schedules and technical specification (Tenah, 2001; AIACC,
2007). This supports Hughes, Tippett and Thomas’s claim that the competence and
experience of the design-build team affects quality of DB projects (Hughes, Tippett and
Thomas, 2003). The implication here for the project owner is that, when adopting DB
systems in project delivery there should be checks and balance measures in place to minimise
cost or the adoption on robust price evaluation techniques should be used when allocating
project budgets.
On the other hand the interaction of DBB and cost minimisation was positive but nonsignificant, which implies, emphasis on cost in DBB projects has relation to achieving project
success. Implying that, when project owners adopt DBB system to deliver a project focusing
on reducing cost will not necessarily increase or decrease the possibility of achieving a
43  
 

successful project therefore efforts should be made in emphasising other aspects like process
integration (Way, 2005) or system management (DeWit, 1988).
Cost attributes of a project is identified by most studies as a critical factor/ criteria for
determining or measuring success of a project, and this is usually defined by meeting
budgets, avoiding cost overruns and getting value for money (Atkinson, 1999; Dainty, Cheng
and Moore, 2003; Ahsan and Gunawan, 2009). DeWit argues that, cost measure the progress
of a project not success (DeWit, 1988), but based on the afore mentioned, it can be said that
cost is a priority of most project participants, in terms of cost savings for owner and
minimum risk: profit margins and minimal expense for contractors and best value for project
stakeholders in general.
Cost minimisation as a moderating factor for achieving project success as shown earlier, has
a negatively significant effect on project success when emphasized its emphasized. This
could imply two things in relation to project owners: first emphasis on cost minimisation in
DB system can lead to selecting contractors based on lowest construction price at the expense
of high quality service or materials and secondly, setting early budgets which provides little
room for accommodate proposed changes by the contractor to increase project quality or
contingencies that might have cost implications (Ling, 2005).
For policy makers in public sector organisations, the implication here is, other factors should
be considered when selecting DB or DBB systems. Selecting a PDS based solely on financial
objectives can lead to increased possibility of unsuccessful projects especially in DB.
Empirical evidence shows there has been a 5% increase in the adoption of DB systems (Chen
et al, 2010 p.598) as an alternative to DBB systems due to 30% faster delivery time and 13%
cost reduction (Ameyaw, 2009 p.3), even though the impact is negative in this case it might
hold true in other sectors due to the uniqueness and variation of each project.
Having adequate control of a PDS translates into various positive outcomes like meeting
schedule of works, effective communication, effective allocation of resources and achieving
project and project management objectives. As mentioned earlier in chapter 2, making the
distinction between project success and project management success (Haravi and Ilbeigi,
2012) allows for project manager to develop effect strategies in approaching project
execution (Griffin and Page, 1996). Hence, project control as a moderating factor of the
44  
 

 
effects of DBB and DB on project effectiveness reveals a positive but non-significant
relationship with DBB and a positive and very significant effect of their interaction.
This reveals that when a DBB system is adopted, project success may or may not be achieved
irrespective of emphasis put on project control. Implying that, to achieve successful project
though DBB systems emphasis can be put on other critical factors identified in literature like
process integration (Way, 2005) or effective construction management (CMAA, 2012) aside
control. The significant interaction effect further confirms that projects are more successful
when high levels of DB are implemented and when owners emphasize higher levels of
control on projects.
Effectiveness in the context of this study was identified as the desired outcome of a
successful PDS project, and further to this it was determined how effectiveness related to
project quality. Based on the analysis, there was a significant relationship between the two:
high levels of project effectiveness were related to greater levels of project quality.
When the end product of a project (i.e. the project facility) is realised through either DBB or
DB system, and it’s able to deliver optimum services and function as its expected, it can be
said that project success (effectiveness) is achieved but the operational performance of the
project after completions attests to the level of quality attained. The implication of this to
project/facility mangers is that, project quality is not dependent on whether DBB or DB
system is adopted, but depends on the level of success of the outcome of the project (i.e. in
this context the level of project effectiveness). Bearing in mind project success varies from
project to project Meaning certain factors need to be present to improve project quality,
examples include superior design and equipment quality, competent project participants,
functionality and availability of facility, empirical evidence from research work by Ling
(2005) confirms that adopting DBB or DB does not directly relate the level of project quality
achieved (Ling, 2005).

6.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research
Limitations of this study were in relation to collection and analysis data. First of all, manually
distributing questionnaires was discovered to be the most effective method for the research
environment, due to difference in culture and technological inclination of public sector works
45  
 

in most developing economies like Ghana. Despite the introductory letter attached to the
questionnaire to explain the purpose of the survey, some respondent were apprehensive about
disclosing information willingly.
Another limitation was the possible effect of the sample size of the data set. Perhaps the
statistical power (correlation coefficient) of variables understudy could have influenced,
resulting in high multicollinearity. Subtle interaction between variables that were interpreted
as non-significant below 5% could have been significant in a larger sample size (Kahane,
2008).
Considering the findings of this study, ther is an opportunity for furthe studies to discover
how applicable this theory is to other project delivery systems, and investigate how emphasis
on cost and control affect project success and if possible how other moderating variables like
time interacts with project success. In addition investigating the theory in the context of
private sector organisations and perspective, can determine the generalization of the findings
in the study.
It would be interesting to study a larger sample to find out if there could be a significant
relationship between DBB and project effectiveness when owner’s emphasis is on cost
minimisation or project control , and also discover the resulting effects on project quality.

46  
 

 

REFERENCES
 
AIACC- American institute of Architects Califonia Council (2007). Intergrated
project delivery: A guide.http://info.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/IPD_Guide_2007.pdf
Abraham, G.L., (2002). Identification of critical success factors for construction
organizations in the architectural/engineering/construction (A/E/C) industry. Thesis (Ph.D)
Georgia Institute of Technology. [online] Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/276214113/fulltextPDF/1400C804B492E551C7E/1?acco
untid=14511 [Accessed 14 August 2013]
Ahsan, K., Gunawan, I. (2009). Analysis of cost and schedule performance of international
development projects, International Journal of Project Management. [online] 28 (1) p. 68-78
Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786309000337
[Accessed 1 August 2013]
Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P. O. (2008). Critical success criteria for
mass house building projects in developing countries. International Journal of Project
Management, [online] 26(6) p. 675-687. Available at:
http://www.uploadtak.com/images/i9114_1s2.pdf [Accessed 15 June 2013]
Aiken, L. S., and West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. US: Sage.
Alzahrani, J. I., & Emsley, M. W. (2012). The impact of contractors’ attributes on
construction project success: A post construction evaluation. International Journal
of Project Management. [online] 31(2) p.313-322. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786312000804 [Accessed
15 June 2013]
Amade, B., (2012). Partnering mechanisms and the procurement of building
construction projects delivery. International journal of advanced scientific and
technical research. [online] 2(6) p.596-620. Available at:
http://rspublication.com/ijst/dec12/57.pdf [Accessed 19 May 2013]
Ameyaw, C. 2009. Comparative performance evaluation of the traditional design-bid-build
(DBB) and design-build (DB) procurement methods in Ghana. Theses (MSc.). Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology
Ameyaw, C., Mensah, S. and Arthur, Y. D (2012). Applicability of Bromilow’s time – cost
model on building projects in Ghana. 4th West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER)
Conference [online] p.881-888. Available at:
http://www.academia.edu/2761776/Applicability_of_Bromilows_TimeCost_Model_on_Building_Projects_in_Ghana [Accessed 6 January 2013]
Anvuur, A., Kumaraswamy, M., & Male, S. (2006). Taking forward public procurement
reforms in Ghana. CIB. [online] Available at:
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/20491/2/CIB1913%5B1%5D.pdf [Accessed 4 June 2013]

47  
 

Arnold, D. J., and J. A. Quelch. 1998. New strategies in emerging markets. Sloan
Management Review. [online] 40 (1) p.7-20. Available at:
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/new-strategies-in-emerging-markets/ [Accessed 15/08/13]
Arts, J. and Faith-Ell, C., (2012). New Governance Approaches For Sustainable
Project Delivery, Procardia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. [online] 48, p. 32393250. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812030339 [Accessed 5
July 2013]
Asamoa-amono, E. K. (2010). Implementation of Design-build Procurement In
Ghana. (BSc.) University College Denmark. [online] Available at:
https://www.ucviden.dk/student-portal/files/9463045/peocurement_systems.pdf
[Accessed 19 May 2013]
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project managemement: cost, time and quality, two best
guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International
Journal of Project Management [online] 17(6), p. 337-342. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786398000696 [Accessed
15 July 2013]
Brown, A. Hinks, J. and Sneddon, J., (2001) "The facilities management role in new building
procurement", Facilities. [online] 19 (3/4) p.119 – 130. Available at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=844290 [Accessed 17 August 2013]
BSIRA, (2009) The soft landing framework for better briefing, design, handover and building
performance in-use. [online] Available at: http://www.bsria.co.uk/services/design/softlandings/free-guidance/ [Accessed 20 July 2013]
Chan, A. P.C and Chan, A. P.L., (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring
construction project success. Benchmarking. AB.INFORM [online]11(2). p.203-221
Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=14635771&volume=11&issue=2&articleid=843109&show=html [Accessed 10 June 2013]
Chen, Y.Q., Lu, H., Lu, W. and Zhang, N., (2010). Analysis of project delivery systems in
Chinese construction industry with data envelopment analysis (DEA). Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, [online] 17(6), p. 598-614. Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/763663527/13E2DCEE6FA24E2643B/1?accountid=145
11 [Accessed 4 June 2013]
Chen, Y. Q., Liu, J. Y., Li, B., & Lin, B. (2011). Project delivery system selection of
construction projects in China. Expert Systems with Applications, [online] 38(5), p.54565462. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417410011528#
[Accessed 4 June 2013]
CMAA-Construction Management Association of America, 2012. Advancing Professional
Construction and Program Management Worldwide; Owner’s guide to project delivery
methods.
48  
 

 
[online]  Available  at:  
http://cmaanet.org/files/Owners%20Guide%20to%20Project%20Delivery%20Methods%20Fi
nal.pdf [26 August 2013]
Dainty, A. R., Cheng, M. I., & Moore, D. R. (2003). Redefining performance measures for
construction project managers: an empirical evaluation. Construction Management &
Economics, [online] 21(2), 209-218.  Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/0144619032000049737
[Accessed 30 July 2013]
Davis, K. (2013). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success.
International Journal of Project Management. [online] Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786313000276 [Accessed 16 June
2013]
De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success, International Journal of Project
Management. [online] 6(3) p.164-170 Available  at;  
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0263786388900439#    [Accessed  14  
August  2013]  
 
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2004). The success dimensions of international development
projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators. International Journal of Project
Management, [online] 22(1),p.19-31. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786303000085 [Accessed 15 June
2013]
Doloi, H. (2012). Understanding impacts of time and cost related construction risks on
operational performance of PPP projects. International Journal of Strategic Property
Management, [online] 16(3), p.316-337. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.3846/1648715X.2012.688774
[Accessed 19 May 2013]
Eriksson, P. E., & Westerberg, M. (2011). Effects of cooperative procurement procedures on
construction project performance: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project
Management. [online] 29(2), p.197-208. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786310000050 [Accessed 15 June
2013]
Erridge, A., & McIlroy, J. (2002). Public procurement and supply management strategies.
Public Policy and Administration, [online] 17(1), p.52-71. Available at:  
http://slim.ukm.my/tfolio/Assets/whitelotus/Documents/chain%20management.pdf [Accessed
12 January 2013]
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J., & Crawford, L. (2003). Causes of delay and cost overruns in
construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study.
International Journal of project management, [online] 21(5), p.321-326. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786302000558# [Accessed 18 July
2013]

49  
 

Griffin, A., & Page, A. L. (1996). PDMA success measurement project: recommended
measures for product development success and failure. Journal of product innovation
management. [online] 13(6), p.478-496. Available at:
http://www.cob.unt.edu/slides/Paswan/MKTG4320/1996.pdf [Accessed 30 July 2013]
Griffin Enterprises. Project Management 101– Project management primer: definitions and
process. [online] Available at:
http://www.griffinenterprises.com/files/Download/Project%20Management_a%20primer.pdf [Accessed 12
August 2013]
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. and Tatham, R. L (2006).
Multivariate Data Analysis. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hale, D. R., Shrestha, P. P., Gibson Jr, G. E., & Migliaccio, G. C. (2009). Empirical
comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project delivery methods. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, [online] 135(7), p.579-587. Available at:
http://www.mty.itesm.mx/dia/deptos/cv2/cv99130/Archivos%20Tareas/ComparandoDCCyDC.pdf [18 August 2013]
Heravi, G., & Ilbeigi, M. (2012). Development of a comprehensive model for construction
project success evaluation by contractors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, [online] 19(5), p.526-542. Available at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=09699988&volume=19&issue=5&articleid=17036953&show=html [Accessed 15 June 2013]
Hoskisson, R. E., L. Eden, C. M. Lau, and M. Wright. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies.
Academy of Management Journal [online] 43 (3) p.249-267. Available at:
http://www.voxprofessori.com/eden/Publications/strategyinemergingeconomies.pdf
Hughes, S.W., Tippett, D.D. and Thomas, W.K., (2004). Measuring Project
Success in the Construction Industry. Engineering Management Journal, [online]
16(3), p. 31-37. Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/208956535/fulltextPDF/13E95BFC3FA7DFB33B6/1?ac
countid=14511 [Accessed 10 June 2009]
Hwang, B. G., & Lim, E. S. J. (2012). Critical success factors for key project players and
objectives: case study of Singapore. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
[online] 139(2), p.204-215. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.19437862.0000597?journalCode=jcemd4 [Accessed 5 July 2013]
Ibbs, C. W., Kwak, Y. H., Ng, T., & Odabasi, A. M. (2003). Project delivery systems and
project change: Quantitative analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
[online] 129(4), p.382-387. Available at:
http://home.gwu.edu/~kwak/Project_Delivery_Systems.pdf [Accessed 21 May 2013]
Kahane, L. H., (2008). Regression Basics. 2nd Edition. USA: Sage.

50  
 

 
Kim, D. Y., Han, S. H., Kim, H., & Park, H. (2009). Structuring the prediction model of
project performance for international construction projects: A comparative analysis. Expert
systems with applications, [online] 36(2), p.1961-1971. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417407006264 [Accessed 15 June
2013]
Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: an exploratory reexamination. International journal of project management, [online] 17(4), p.243-248.
Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786398000404
[Accessed 15 July 2013]
Ling, F.Y., (2005). Models for predicting quality of building projects. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, [online] 12(1), p.6-20. Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218645972?accountid=14511 [Accessed 15 June 2013]
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using Multivariate Statistics Sixth Edition. USA:
Pearson.
Oyetunji, A. A., & Anderson, S. D. (2006). Relative effectiveness of project delivery and
contract strategies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, [online]132(1),
p.3-13. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:1(3)
[Accessed
McDaniel and Gates, (2010). Marketing research with SPSS. 8th edition. Asia: Wiely and
Sons
Meredith, J. R and Mantel, S. J (2010). Project management- A managerial approach. Asia:
John Wiely and Son
NAO, (2005). Improving Public services through better construction. London:
NAO
NAO- Nation Audit Office, (2011). Initiating successful projects. [online]
Available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/NAO_Guide_Initiating_successful_projects.pdf
[Accessed 17 July 2013]
NAO- Nation Audit Office, (2009a). A review by the private finance practice- PFI
construction projects review. [online] Available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2009/10/2009_performance_pfi_construction.pdf [Accesd 20 July 2013]
NAO- Nation Audit Office, (2009b). A paper for the Lords Economic affairs committee.
Private Finance Projects. [online] Available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2009/11/HL_Private_Finance_Projects.pdf [Accessed 20 July 2013]
Way, M., (2005). Soft landings: A fresh scope of service that ensures users and clients get the
best out of a new building. Journal of Facilities Management, [online] 4(1), p. 23-39.
Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218916641/fulltextPDF/13F61EB20DB10F1EF1B/1?acc
ountid=14511 [Accessed 20 July 2013]
51  
 

Miller, J. B., Garvin, M. J., Ibbs, C. W., & Mahoney, S. E. (2000). Toward a new paradigm:
Simultaneous use of multiple project delivery methods. Journal of Management in
Engineering, [online] 16(3), p.58-67. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:3(58) [Accessed 5 July
2013]
Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Swarup, L., & Riley, D. (2011). Delivering Sustainable, HighPerformance Buildings: Influence of Project Delivery Methods on Integration and Project
Outcomes. Journal of Management in Engineering, [online] 29(1), p.71-78. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ME.19435479.0000114?journalCode=jmenea [Accessed 5 July 2013]
MOFEP- Ministry of Finanace and Economic Planning Ghana (2010). Public borrowing and
project selection guidelines, For
Promotion of Responsible Borrowing and Lending Practices
[online] Available at:
http://www.mofep.gov.gh/sites/default/files/docs/dmd/Public_Borrowing_Guideline
s.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2013]
Mustapha, Z. (2013).Accelerated Factors of Delays on Project Delivery in Ghana:
A Case Study of Cape Coast Metropolis. Journal of Applied Sciences &
Environmental Sustainability [online] 1(1) p.54-61. Available at:

http://www.jases.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Zakari_AcceleratedFactors-of-Delays-on-Project-Delivery-in-Ghana.pdf [Accessed 18 July
2013]
N.J Smith, (1995). The management of engineering projects. USA: Blackwell
science
N.J. Smith (1999), Managing risk in construction projects. Oxford and Northampton:
Blackwell Science Ltd.
Ren, Z., Kwaw, P., & Yang, F. (2012). Ghana's public procurement reform and the
continuous use of the traditional procurement system: The way forward. Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, [online] 2(1), p.56-69. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)07339364(2006)132:3(230)
[Accessed 20 August 2013]
Ogunlana, S. O. (2009). Construction professionals' perception of critical success factors for
large-scale construction projects. Construction Innovation: Information, Process,
Management, [online] 9(2), p.149-167. Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218321299/fulltextPDF/14036C6DF3036695F1B/1?acco
untid=14511 [Accessed 15 June 2013]
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: a
multidimensional strategic concept. Long range planning, [online] 34(6), p.699725. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024630101000978 [Accessed
15 June 2010]
52  
 

 
Smith, J. and Jaggar, D, (2007). Construction cost planning for the design team. Second
edition. Butterworth-Heinemann USA: Elsevier Ltd.
Tenah, K.A., (2001). Project delivery systems for construction: An overview. Cost
Engineering, [online] 43(1), p. 30-36. Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/220437282/fulltextPDF/13E2DCEE6FA24E2643B/3?ac
countid=14511 [Accessed 21 May 2013]
Trauner consulting services (2007). Construction project delivery and procurement practices :
considerations, alternatives, advantages and disadvantages. [online] Available at:
http://www.fefpa.org/pdf/summer2007/Pros-Cons-handout.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2013]
Toor, S. U. R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). Critical COMs of success in large-scale
construction projects: evidence from Thailand construction industry. International Journal of
Project Management, [online] 26(4), p.420-430. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786307001275 [Accessed 15 June
2013]
Toor, S. U. R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception
of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects.
International Journal of Project Management, [online] 28(3) p.228-236. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786309000623 [Accessed 7/07/2013]
Way, M. (2000). Soft landings [online] Available at:
http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/emps/research/cee/lchsmodule1notes/Softl
andings.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2013]
Ke, Y., Ling, F., Wang, S., Zou, P., Kumaraswamy, M., and Ning, Y., (2013) Relationships
Among Contracting Parties and Their Effects On Outcomes of Public Construction Projects
in China. AEI. [online] p. 74-83. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412909.008
Wang, X. and Huang, J., (2005). The relationships between key stakeholders’ project
performance and project success: Perceptions of Chinese construction supervising engineers,
International Journal of Project Management. [online] 24 (3) p. 253-260. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786305001225 [Accessed 15/05/13]
Xia, B. (2010). The Selection of Design-build Operational Variations in the People's
Republic of China Using Delphi Method and Fuzzy Set Theory. Thesis (Ph.D.) Hong Kong
Polytechnic University. [online] Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/860792671/fulltextPDF/1400CA5B2514D523543/6?acc
ountid=14511 [Accesed 22 August 2013]
Xia, B. and Albert P.C. Chan, (2010). Key competences of design-build clients in China.
Journal of Facilities Management, [online] 8(2), p.114-129. Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/807393001/fulltextPDF/140303243D128C43DFF/1?acco
untid=14511 [Accessed 17 August 2013]
Yu, A. G., Flett, P. D., & Bowers, J. A. (2005). Developing a value-centred proposal for
assessing project success. International Journal of Project Management, [online] 23(6),
p.428-436. Available at:
53  
 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786305000219 [Accessed 15 June
2013].    

 

54  
 

 

APPENICIES
Appendix I: Cover letter for survey questionnaire

55  
 

APENDIX II: Survey questionnaire

 
SECTION  1:  REGARDING  YOUR  PROJECT  DELIVERY  SYSTEM  
To  what  extent  does  your  project  delivery  system  follow  the  following  processes?  
Please  circle  the  number  that  best  describe  the  condition  in  your  organization.  
 
   
Not  at    
Neutra
To  an    
In  our  organization  we:  
all  
l    
extreme  extent  
1.   normally  use  two  or  more  solicitations  
and  procurement  steps  to  complete  one  
construction  project  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
2.   often  enter  into  a  contract  with  an  
architect/engineer  firm  that  provides  
design  services  based  on  the  
requirements  we  provide  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
3.   typically  ask  an  architect/engineer  firm  
for  deliverables  including  plans  and  
specifications  for  the  construction  of  the  
project  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
4.   normally  use  these  deliverables  as  a  
basis  to  make  a  separate  contract  with  a  
construction  company  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.   we  tend  to  provide  requirements  for  
specific  projects    
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
6.   we  award  a  contract  to  one  company  
who  will  both  design  and  build  a  project  
for  us  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
7.   there  normally  is  only  one  procurement  
step  to  select  one  construction  company  
to  complete  a  project  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
8.   we  often  allow  one  contract  between  us  
and  one  construction  company  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
 
SECTION  2:  REGARDING  YOUR  PROJECT  OBJECTIVES  
A.  To  what  extent  does  your  organization  consider  the  following  project  objectives  
important  to  the  success  of  projects?  
 
 
Extremely  
 
unimporta
Somewhat  
Extremely  
nt  
important    
important  
1.   Meeting  or  exceeding  our  cost  objectives   1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
Meeting  or  exceeding  schedule  
2.   objectives  
Emphasizing  operational  safety  in  the  
3.   design  philosophy  
4.   Emphasizing  safety  in  construction  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

1  
Attaining  high  quality  of  the  constructed  
5.   facility  
1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

56  
 

 
6.   Maximizing  plant  reliability  
7.   Achieving  customer  satisfaction  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8.   Optimizing  risk/return  
9.   Minimizing  contractor  scope  changes  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

10.   Minimizing  risk  

1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
 
B:  To  what  extent  has  your  organization  achieved  its  project  objectives  in  terms  of  
the  following  indicators?  
 
 
Below  
 
Above    
expectation  
Average    
expectation  
1.   Unit  cost  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
2.   Cost  growth    
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
3.   Development  cost  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
4.   Construction  speed  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
5.   Delivery  speed    
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
6.   Schedule  growth  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
7.   Turnover  quality  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
8.   System  quality  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
9.   Equipment  quality  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
10.   Meeting  quality  specifications    
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
11.   Meet  client  satisfaction  
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
 

SECTION  3:  ABOUT  YOURSELF  
The  next  set  of  questions  seeks  to  learn  a  little  bit  about  you.  
 
           
 
1.   What  is  your  job  
 
title?    
 
2.   What  would  you  consider  to  be  your  employment  role?  Please  circle  the  most  
[1]  
Director  n
     umber.  
             
appropriate  
[2]  
P
roject  
M
anager  
                     
 
[3]  
  Project  Consultant                      
[4]  Other,  please  specify:  
3.    How  long  have  you  been  with  your  
   
 4.  

[1]  State  owned    

 

 Type  of  
company?  
 
organization    
 

 

 

[4]  Government  department/ministry  

 

 

[5]  Other,  please  specify:    

 

[2]  public  liability  limited  
[3]  Non-­‐governmental  organization  

 
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐This  is  the  end  the  questionnaire.  Thank  you  for  participating  in  this  study-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  

57  
 

Appendix III: Coding and factor analysis of variable measures
 

Item code
DBB1

DBB2

DBB3

DBB4

DB1‡
DB2

DB3

DB4

CONT 1
CONT2
C0NT3
CONT4
CONT5‡
CONT6‡
CONT7

Item
Normally use two or more
solicitations and procurement
steps to complete one
construction project
Often enter into a contract with an
architecture/engineering firm that
provides design services based on
the requirements we provide
Typically ask an
architecture/engineering firm for
deliverables including plans and
specifications for the construction
of the project
Normally use these deliverables
as a basis to make a separate
contract with a construction
company
We tend to provide requirements
for specific projects
We award a contract to one
company who will both design
and build a project for us
There normally is only one
procurement step to select one
construction company to complete
a project
We often allow one contract
between us and one construction
company
Meeting or exceeding schedule
objectives
Emphasizing operational safety in
the design philosophy
Emphasizing safety in
construction
Attaining high quality of the
constructed facility
Maximizing plant reliability
Achieving customer satisfaction
Minimizing contractor scope
changes

DBB = Design-bid-build
DB = Design Build
CONT = Project control
COST = Cost minimisation
EFFEC = Effectiveness
QUAL = Project Quality
‡ = Items that were droped due to poor factor loadings

58  
 

Item code
COST1‡

item
Meeting or exceeding our cost
objectives

COST2‡

Optimizing risk/return

C0ST3‡

Minimizing risk

COST4

Unit cost

COST 5

Cost growth

COST 6

Schedule growth

COST7

Development cost

EFFEC2

Construction speed

EFFEC3

Delivery speed

QUAL1‡

Turnover quality

QUAL2

System quality

QUAL3

Equipment quality

QUAL4
QUAL45‡

Meeting quality specification
Meet client satisfaction