Bouwteam Versus Designbuild

Machine Translated by Google
Build Team vs Design Build:

An investigation into the differences between a
construction team and a design-build construction
organization and the influence of these differences on
the design process in complex utility projects.
Version: 3.1 (Friday, June 4, 2010)

Status: final report
On the instructions of:
SG (Sven) Alink
Prof. Dr Ir. Ing AG (André) Dorée Drs.

Ing J. (Hans) Boes
Prepared by: N.
(Niels) Nielen BSc
Date:
Hengelo, 4 June 2010
Construction team vs. Design Build
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 2 of 71
Preface
This final report of my graduation research is the capstone of my study building process
management at the University of Twente. After almost six years of studying it has been nice and
life as a student is coming to an end. I look back on a wonderful time. But I also look forward, to
all the beautiful things that are yet to come.
A word of thanks is certainly in order here. To Kleissen and Partners, who gave me a place
among all the pleasant colleagues and who showed patience when the research took a little longer
than promised. To André and Hans for the critical guidance from the UT. To all the people I was
able to interview in the context of the research, they were all wonderful conversations!
A special thanks to Mom and Dad, Maaike and Sam, friends and of course to Anne, how happy I
am with you!
It only remains for me to wish you a lot of reading pleasure.
Niels Nielen
Hengelo, June 2010
Graduation research
Niels Niels
page 3 of 71
Table of contents
Preface 3
Resume 6
Summary 7
1 Introduction 8
1.1 Cause 8
1.2 Demarcation 9
1.3 Summary Action plan 10
1.3.1 Conceptual model 1.3.2 10
Technical research design 1.4 Reading 12
guide 13
2 Designing at two different construction organizations 14
2.1 Construction organizational 14

forms 2.1.1 Design-build 2.1.2 15
Construction team 17
2.1.3 Kleissen's Plus 19
2.1.4 Construction team versus Design-Build 20
2.2 The design
Phasingprocess
of the explained 2.2.1 2.2.2
design process 20
From problem to program 2.2.3 Designing as 21
a cyclical optimization process 2.3 Rewarding 21
construction process actors 24
26
2.4 28
2.5 In conclusion 30
3 Theoretical framework 31
3.1 Cyclical optimization process 3.1.1 31

Quality/ price 3.1.2 Optimization directions 31
3.2 Designers and their drivers Transaction 32
cost theory (TKT) 33
3.3 34
3.3.1 The transaction cost theory and the design process 3.4 35
Agency theory 36
4 Research optics 39
4.1 Principles for graduation research 39

4.2 Assumptions 4.2.1 Integration of architect 41
and contractor expertise 4.2.2 Optimization in the design 41
process 4.3 Conclusion 41
42
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 4 of 71
5 Case studies 43
5.1 Case study research 43

5.2 Which projects are eligible? 43
5.3 Information sources and data 44
5.3.1 Link data - assumptions In conclusion 5.4 45
45
6 Designing in practice 46
6.1 Six design processes in a row 6.1.1 46

Case 1: Relocation residential community 6.1.2 Case 2: 46
New construction Public school community 6.1.3 Case 3: New 47
construction Christian school community 6.1.4 Case 4: New 48
construction municipal office 6.1.5 Case 5 & 6: New construction 49
cultural Center 50
6.2 Assumptions in practice 52
7 Review assumptions 54
7.1 Assumption 1 54
7.2 Assumption 2 55
7.3 Assumption 3 56
7.4 Assumption 4 56
7.5 Causal model modified 58
8 Conclusions and recommendations 60
8.1 Conclusions 60
8.1.1 The design process 60
8.1.2 Design-build 8.1.3 61
Construction team 62
8.2 Recommendations 64
8.2.1 Recommendations for clients Kleissen and Partners 8.2.2 64
Recommendations for Kleissen and Partners 8.2.3 Recommendations 64
for further research 65
Literature register 67
Definition 69
Appendix 1: Minutes of the exploration of the design process (confidential)
Appendix 2: Case study research
Annex 3: Minutes and case study summaries (confidential)
Graduation research
Niels Niels
page 5 of 71
Resume
This graduation research is an exploration of the differences between a construction team and a design-build
construction organization and the influence of these differences on the end result of the design process. Construction
management agency Kleissen and Partners wants to use the outcome of the research to advise its clients on which
organizational form to choose for the design of a complex utility building.
Based on a literature study and exploratory interviews, a description was made of both construction organizations,
which were then compared with each other to identify the main differences. With these differences as a starting point, a
research perspective has been defined to explain the influence of two found differences on the end result of the design
process.
1. The different relationships between the client and the design team. At one
design-build organization, the client has a 1:1 relationship with the design team. While in a
construction team there are many 1:1 relationships between the client and all individual design team members.
It was expected that this difference would lead to different design solutions.
2. The various possibilities and impossibilities for the client to adjust his starting points for the design during the
design. Compared to a Design-Build organization, a construction team offers more opportunities to come
back to earlier decisions during the design process. The expectation was that this possibility would contribute
positively to the end result.
These two differences are summarized in four assumptions, which were tested by conducting interviews with the clients,
architects and contractors involved in three construction teams and three design-build projects. In these interviews, the
design processes completed have been reconstructed. The influence of the first difference turned out to be different in
practice than expected. The cooperation between the contractor and the architect was not directly influenced by the client
- design team relationship, but more by the contractor - architect relationship. The influence of the second difference was
perceived.
In a design-build organization, the contractor and architect depend on each other during the tender. They only have a
chance of winning the tender if they work well together during the design process. Under these circumstances, there is
a maximum integration of design and implementation. However, if the tender is won, the relationship between the
contractor and the architect changes. The contractor is no longer dependent on the architect and, when elaborating the
design, can focus primarily on design solutions that entail the lowest possible costs for him. Because the contractor has
agreed a fixed price with the client, every euro he saves will go straight back into his pocket. The client runs the risk that
these solutions are at the expense of quality.
Under these circumstances, the integration of design and execution is minimal.
In a construction team there is a different relationship between the contractor and architect than in a design-build
organization. In a construction team, both are dependent on each other for the realization of the design. Due to the lack
of a client - contractor relationship between the two, one cannot dominate the other. In the construction team agreement,
the tasks and responsibilities are divided among the various construction team members. Here we see the pivotal
function of Kleissen and Partners returning, as guardian and coordinator of these tasks and responsibilities. The
Construction team vs. Design Build integration of design and execution in a construction team is characterized by the search for a compromise between the
input of the architect and the contractor.
Graduation research
Niels Niels
page 6 of 71
Summary
This thesis research is an exploration of the differences between a building team and a design-
build construction organization and the impact of these differences on the final outcome of the
design process. Building management agency Kleissen and Partners wants to use the
comparison to advice its principals, which form of organization to choose.
Based on a literature review and exploratory interviews, a description has been made of two
construction organizations, which have subsequently been compared to identify the principal
differences. With these differences as a starting point a research perspective has been defined, to
explain the impact of two differences on the final outcome of the design process.
1. The different relationships between the principal and the design team. In a
design-build construction organization the principal has a 1:1 relationship with the design
team. While in a building team there are many 1:1 relationships between the principal
and all individual design team members. The expectation was that this difference would
lead to different design solutions.
2. The different possibilities and impossibilities for the principal to be able to change his
design basis while designing. Compared to a Design-Build organization, a building
team offers significantly more opportunities to go back on decisions that have been
made earlier on in the design process. The expectation was that this option would
contribute positively to the final result of the design process.
These two differences have been summarized in four propositions, which have been tested in
six case studies: three building teams and three design-build design processes.
In interviews with the principals, architects and contractors, the design processes have been
reconstructed. The influence of the first difference has proved different than expected. The
cooperation between the contractor and architect were not directly affected by the relationship
principal – design team, but rather by the relationship contractor - architect. The influence of the
second difference was observed.
In a design-build organization, the architect and contractor are interdependent during the
tendering process. Only through intense cooperation during the design process are they able to
maximize their chance of winning the tender. Under these circumstances, there is a maximum
integration of design and construction. As soon as the tender is won, the relationship between
the contractor and architect changes. The contractor doesn't depend on the architect anymore
for the quality of the design. The contractor will aim for low cost design solutions while detailing
the design. Because the contractor and the principal have agreed on a fixed price, every single
euro saved will flow back into the pocket of the contractor. The principal runs the risk that these
solutions will be at the expense of overall quality. Under these circumstances, the integration of
design and construction is minimal.
In a building team there is a different relationship between the contractor and architect as opposed
to in a design-build organization. In a building team the architect and contractor are both
dependent on each other for the realization of the design. The absence of a principal - agent
relationship between the two means that one cannot dominate the other. In the building team
agreement, the duties and responsibilities are divided among the various building team members.
We see the pivotal role of Kleissen Partners as a guard and coordinator of these duties and
Construction team vs. Design Build responsibilities here. The integration of design and construction in a building team, is characterized
by the search for a compromise between the input of the architect and the contractor.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 7 of 71
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
In the Dutch construction industry, more and more construction projects are being fully
outsourced to a single market party. By at least bundling the design and execution in a single
contract, it is expected that an integrated contractor can achieve synergy benefits by integrating
various construction process tasks. The traditional division between design and execution
(Dorée, 2001) is generally seen as undesirable and is therefore the main driver of the emergence
of these integrated contract forms.
Kleissen en Partners (KenP) is a construction management agency that can supervise

the entire construction process, from the first initiative for a location development to the
management of buildings for its clients. To achieve an optimal end result, KenP prefers to organize
the design process as a construction team1 . In a construction team organisation, Kleissen
coordinates the design and implementation process on behalf of the client. By having the contractor
participate in the design team at an early stage, optimal use can be made of his implementation
and cost expertise. As a result, costs and progress can be better controlled.
Despite the good experiences with the construction team, Kleissen is increasingly confronted with
the question of whether an integrated construction organization, in which the design and
implementation are bundled in a single design-build contract, is not a good way to organize the
construction process. However, Kleissen has a strong preference for the construction team in
favor of design-build for several reasons. After all, the construction team also removes the
traditional separation between design and implementation. But without handing over control of the
design to an integral contractor.
Kleissen is interested in a comparison of both methods in order to better advise clients on the
choice of a construction team or a design-build organisation. What are the differences between
the two and what is the influence of these differences on the process and the end result?
Figure 1, construction organization forms B&U (Pries, 2008)
Graduation research 1
A construction team is an integrated construction process organization, in which the representatives of
Niels Nielen the building process functions 'take initiative', 'design' and 'execute' work together (Sijpersma & Buur, 2005).
page 8 of 71
1.2 Demarcation
Clients Kleissen's
clients who are walking around with ideas about the integrated outsourcing of work can
mainly be found in the semi-government sector and local authorities. Examples include
municipalities, educational institutions, cultural institutions and housing corporations. The
perspective from which the comparison will be made is, for this reason, the perspective of the
client.
Complex non-residential
construction The projects that are the subject of research arise from the construction needs of the
clients. The research will therefore be limited to projects in non-residential construction, which can
be described as both technically and process-wise complex (Duvivier, 2007). Ergo: project-based
delineation of the research is the complex non-residential construction2 for semi- and local
authorities. Examples include libraries, schools and theatres.
Construction
process Not all phase3 of the construction process lends itself to a comparison between the
construction team and a construction organization based on an integrated contract. Because the
construction team is the starting point for us, we focus on the program, design and realization phase,
with the emphasis on the design phase. After all, a construction team agreement is entered into for
the design phase of a construction project.
Construction
organizations We want to compare the construction team with the construction organization
based on an integrated contract that is closest to the construction team. In a construction team,
the contractor is part of the design team, in order to make use of his costs and implementation
expertise. It is expected that due to his input and involvement in the design, the implementation
will run more smoothly. Based on this expectation, we want to compare the construction team with
that integrated contract form that is limited to the integration of design and execution. We compare
the build team to design-build4 (DB) for this reason. After all, a design-build construction
organization has an integrated contract for both design and implementation.
Construction process
actors The construction team and a design-build organization have one
important common characteristic. Both remove the functional separation between the
construction process tasks of design and execution. Designing is primarily done by an architect and
building by a contractor. During design, construction costs are largely determined, while most costs
are incurred during construction. For these reasons, as well as the need to delineate the study, we
will look in particular at the role of the contractor and architect in the construction organisations.
The various consultants, such as the architect and building physicist, therefore fall outside the
scope of the study.
2
Projects in non-residential construction, which are complex in terms of processes, because several users are involved
construction process, there is fragmented financing, a public interest and/or they are prestige projects. Process complexity is
Construction team vs. Design Build often one of the factors that make the project technically complex.
3
Construction process phase according to NEN 2574, see
4
section 2.2.1 Construction organizations come in many different variations. There is some discussion about the names of these
Graduation research variations. For example, the term 'Turn Key' is also used for a construction organization based on an integrated contract, which combines
design and execution. However, to avoid confusion, we will only use the term 'design-build' in our research.
Niels Nielen
page 9 of 71
1.3 Summary Action plan
1.3.1 Conceptual model
Problem definition and objective By

working in a DB construction organization form, with an associated integrated contract, the
separation between design and execution is removed. This separation is seen as undesirable
(Dorée, 1996) and is therefore one of the main causes of the emergence of integrated contract
forms. The disadvantage of these integrated contracts is that a new separation is created, namely
that between the program and the design. This seems to ignore the potential of the construction
team, where the separation between design and execution is also removed, but without creating a
hard contractual separation between the program and design phase.
However, there are some prejudices about working in a construction team. One of these
prejudice is that the contractor can be expected to have a less active attitude during the design
process. He can sit back and relax until the rest of the construction team has made a design
and then make a quotation for the realization. When making that offer, he does not have to take
competitors into account because he has agreed with the client in the construction team agreement
that he is exclusively allowed to make an offer for the execution. The second bias is that this deal
will drive up the price. Kleissen and Partners has adapted the regular construction team model on a
few points to prevent this behaviour. However, the added value of these adjustments has never
been evaluated to date.
The above results in the following problem and objectives.
Problem statement:
Kleissen and Partners believe that working in a construction team5 in many cases yields a
more favorable quality/ price for clients than working with an integrated contract. Nevertheless,
she sees an increasing demand among her clients for working with integrated contracts.
In order to convince its clients of the potential of the construction team, KenP wants to investigate
the differences between the two and the influence of these differences on the end result for its client.
Objective: The
objective is to explore the differences between construction team and Design-Build and the influence
of these on the end result of the construction process. By using desk research, exploratory interviews
and case studies to look for these differences and influences.
Research model
The research model (figure 2) is a schematic representation of all logical steps that must be followed
to achieve the objective. It also forms the bridge to the formulation of the research questions.
The theoretical framework (a) consists of literature on designs and organizational goals and
interviews with various construction managers. We will also look for theory that says something
about the relationship between the behavior of members in a design team6 and their remuneration.
The positivist agency theory focuses on principal behavior

5
In our research, we understand the construction team as the model used by Kleissen: Bouwteamplus.
6
Graduation research A design team is an interorganization, i.e. an organization of legally independent natural or legal persons, who have mutually agreed
to work together as one organization and possibly also to present themselves as one organization (Encyclo, 2009).
Niels Nielen
page 10 of 71
and contractors of conflicting goals (Eisenhardt, 1989) and for this reason seems to be able to
contribute to the drafting of our framework.
Transaction cost theory links people's behavior to a number of transaction-specific

variables (Williamson, 1973). Because we are concerned with the behavior (deployment) of the
design team members and we compare two organizational forms with each other, the transaction
cost theory also seems to play an explanatory role in our research.
By considering the designer as a professional, as defined by Mintzberg (1979), we can,

to some extent, describe and explain his behaviour. For this reason, Mintzberg's theory
of professionals gives us insight into the involvement of the contractor and architect in the design
process.
The theoretical framework results in a research perspective (b), which takes the form of a model
in which the influence of the differences between the construction team and design-build on the
design process is explained. From this point of view, we will conduct a number of case studies. We
want to find out through interviews what the motives of the contractors and architects were for their
efforts during the design process.
Agency theory
Transaction Cost Theory
Mintzberg professional
Case study 3
Designing literature
D&C projects:
Analysis
Literature results
organizational goals
Influence of
remuneration structure Conclusion
Interviews D&C
on the design process.
construction managers
Analysis
results
Interviews BT
construction managers
Case study 3
BT+ projects:
Documents KenP:
- tenders contractors
- quotes from architects
a. b. c. d.
theoretical framework research perspective and analysis Purpose of it
research object research
Figure 2, research model (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2005)
We will analyze the results of the case studies (c). On the basis of this analysis, an attempt
Construction team vs. Design Build will be made to make a statement about the differences between the construction team and
design-build and the influence of these differences on the construction process and the end result
Graduation research
(d).
Niels Nielen
page 11 of 71
question
In order to meet the objectives of the research, a number of questions will be formulated,
which together will lead to the achievement of the stated research goal. The main question,
derived from the research objective and research model, is as follows:
What differences between a construction team and a design-build construction organization

affect the end result of the design process?
To answer the main question, a number of research questions linked to the research
model have been formulated.
1. What are the differences between a construction team and a design-build construction organization?
a. What is a construction organization?

b. What are the characteristics of a design-build construction organization?
c. What are the characteristics of a construction team?
2. What is design?
a. What is the purpose of design b.

What does the process look like to achieve this goal? c. What
tasks must be fulfilled during design? d. Who performs those duties? e. What
are the interests of the different design team members? f. How does a client
assess the end result of the design process?
3. What is the added value of Kleissen and Partners bouwteamplus?
a. On what points does Kleissen's construction team differ from the regular
construction team?
b. What is the influence of these differences on the end result of the

design process?
1.3.2 Research technical design

In the technical research design, it will be described how the research will be realized. The
strategy is explained, where will the research information be obtained from and what steps will
be taken to turn this action plan into a research result?
Research strategy We
call all decisions taken together about the way in which the research is carried out the research
strategy (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2005). A number of decisions logically follow from the conceptual
design that influence the research strategy. Because it is specifically investigated how two different
organizational forms relate to each other when designing complex utility projects, it can be said that
we are dealing here with an in-depth investigation.
The comparison between construction team and DB is qualitative, based on the case studies and
the interviews, a contemplative judgment is made about the differences between a construction
team and DB construction organization and the influence of these differences on the end result of
the design process. For these reasons, a combination of desk research and case study was chosen
Construction team vs. Design Build as the research strategy.
Graduation research
Niels Niels
page 12 of 71
Research material In
order to answer the research questions, different types of research material are used. The
sources used in this research are persons, literature and documents.
Case studies
The construction team projects can be found internally at Kleissen. One internal design-build
project also seems to lend itself as suitable research material. For the other DB projects, however,
we have to look outside the door.
Research planning
The total size of the graduation research is 30 ECTS, which amounts to about 21 weeks. To
monitor the progress and quality of the work, a number of feedback moments will be scheduled
with the supervisors.
1.4 Reading guide
The content of the graduation research is divided into four parts:
A. The introductory part (Chapters 1 & 2)

B. Theoretical part (chapter 3 & 4)
C. Practice (chapter 5 & 6)
D. Concluding part (chapter 7 & 8)
A. The introductory part

In the first chapter of this study, we described what we are going to study, why we are going to
study it and how we are going to study it. The second chapter clarifies what exactly designing
a building entails and what the differences are between a construction team and a Design-build
construction organization. We will also pay attention to the mechanism that Kleissen has built
into the design process to counteract the disadvantages of the construction team.
B. Theoretical part In
chapter three, a number of theories will be discussed which can explain the efforts of the
contractor and architect in the design process and the influence on the end result. The professional
according to Mintzberg, different optimization directions in the design process, the positivist agency
theory and the transaction cost theory will be discussed.
Based on the conclusions from chapters 2 and 3, we will define our research perspective.
According to which mechanism does the design process work at both construction organizations and
what is the influence on the end result?
C. Practice
Chapter five is actually a short action plan for the case studies. We will describe here which
projects we are going to look at and why this one in particular. It will also be explained how we will
collect the data of interest to us. In chapter six the findings from the case studies are presented.
D. Concluding part In
chapter 7, the assumptions will be reviewed in the light of the case study results. Was the chosen
research approach the right one or is an adjustment in order? In chapter 8, the differences between
the build team and design-build are summarized and we will provide a number of recommendations
based on our findings.
Graduation research
Niels Niels
page 13 of 71
2 Designing at two different construction

organizations
The choice to work in a particular construction organization is a fundamental one (PSIBouw, 2005).
The construction organization determines how the construction process will be organized. Questions
such as: Who will be part of the design team? Who bears what responsibilities? Who can the client
turn to if he wants to exert influence? All of these are discussed when choosing a particular
organizational form.
In chapter two we discuss what a construction organization actually is and how the two organizational
forms, which are the subject of research, relate to each other.
Attention will also be paid to KenP's own organizational model: bouwteamplus
(Section 2.1). We then discuss what design is and what steps are taken to go from nothing to a
design (Section 2.2). In section 2.3 we look at the different players in the design process. Who
does what and what objectives do the different members of a design team have? Finally, the
different interests of the members of a design team are examined and how these are influenced
by the building organization structure (Section 2.4).
2.1 Building organization forms
The construction organization form tells us something about how the tasks and responsibilities
within the construction process are divided among the participants. Construction processes often
take years, if not decades. The passage of time and the associated changing project environment
have a major influence on the dynamics of the construction process. Many different parties are
often involved during the process. Of all these parties, one is involved from A to Z, while another
only participates in a certain part of the process.
It goes without saying that many different forms are conceivable for organizing a building
process. In the Dutch construction industry, a number of main forms are distinguished, for
which standardized contracts exist in order to legally record the tasks and responsibilities.
The subject of research are two of these main forms: The Building Team & Design-Build.
A common feature is that both are integrated organizational forms7. In order to remove the traditional
separation between design and implementation, the contractor is actively involved in the design
process. Because he is the expert in the field of implementation, his influence can have a positive
effect on the manufacturability8 of the design.
However, there are also differences. A construction team is formed when design is started and
ends when the design is ready for implementation. A design-build organization is formed for both
the design and the execution phase. In a construction team, the client enters into bilateral contracts
with the various design team members. While the tasks and responsibilities of a design-build
organization are laid down in a single contract.

7
In our research we understand an integrated construction organisation, a construction organization in which both the contractor
Graduation research be part of the design team as an architect.
8
The extent to which use is made of knowledge and experience about planning, technical development, purchasing and
Niels Nielen realization of an architectural design, in order to achieve the set project goals.
page 14 of 71
2.1.1 Design Build

When choosing a design-build organization, the client places its trust in the market. He assumes
that if he knows what he wants to achieve with his project, the market will be able to find a suitable
integrated solution.
During the initiative phase, the client will determine its starting points9 for the design as much
as possible. What is the purpose of the construction project? What functional and performance
requirements will the design have to meet? Does the client already have an idea of the appearance
of the building? What kind of budget is available for the construction project? These questions and
more must be answered in order to establish the principles.
Now that the client knows what he wants, he will enter a tender process to choose a contractor.
Due to (European) competition legislation, this process usually consists of two phases. First, a
number of suitable providers10 are selected on the basis of a pre-selection. They are then invited
to make an offer. This offer will consist of a design, elaborated to a level determined by the client,
including a price for the realisation.
By having different suppliers compete with each other, every design team will feel the pressure
of the competition. This pressure encourages the team to look for design solutions that offer the
client the optimum quality/price. After all, this gives the provider the best chance of winning the
tender
Client
Advisors
Contractor design team
Installers
Architect
DB provider DB contractor
pr.
final SO VO DO TO Performance
Client
Contractual relationship
Advisors
Contractor design team
Installers
Architect
Figure 3, DB construction organization in the construction process

9
He records the expectations that a client has when entering the design process in a number
starting points, with which the design team can get started. In our research we distinguish the following starting points: the
Graduation research client's budget; the program of requirements and the project environment
10
It is not certain which organization acts as the provider. In practice, however, we see that these are often construction companies
Niels Nielen which have their own project development.
page 15 of 71
to win. The client can choose between the different offers.

This means that he can assess both the quality and the price of the offers on the basis
of his previously formulated starting points. If the choice for one of the offers has been made, the
client enters into an integral contract with the relevant provider for the further completion and
realization of the offered design.
Depending on the extent to which the design offer was elaborated, the contractor will
further finalize the design so that implementation can begin.
The starting points of the client are still leading here. The design must at least meet the
requirements. The budget that the contractor must now take into account is equal to the agreed
contract price. When the contractor has realized his own design, the construction organization
ceases to exist.
Based on the above description, we will use the following definition of design-build (DB) in
our research:
Design-build is an integrated construction process organization in which one

contractor takes on both the design and execution of the construction process
tasks (Sijpersma & Buur, 2005).
Tasks and responsibilities The

construction organization tells us something about the division of tasks and
responsibilities in the construction process. Based on the above description, we can say that
the tasks related to the design and implementation are fully outsourced to a single market party.
The associated responsibility for the design and implementation is also allocated to that market
party.
Variations
In our research we assume an ideal type of design-build organization, as described above.
In practice, however, there are quite a few variations on this ideal type that deviate on one or more
points. We will briefly discuss the main variations here.
A first variation is the entry point of the providers. It is possible that the client does not limit
himself to defining the starting points, but already proposes (part of) the solution himself. By
taking the first steps towards the design solution together with an architect, the client can
influence the end result. The task package of the market is limited to the development of the
design (engineering) and the realization of the design. This organizational form is also known as
engineer-build.
A second variation is the influence of the client on the construction process. The idea of a DB
organization is that the client experiences the design and implementation process at a distance
and has no involvement in the process. After all, he assumes that his construction project is in good
hands with the selected contractor. In practice, however, we see that the client does exert influence.
This can be done, on the one hand, by adjusting its starting points during the design or
implementation process, or, on the other hand, by designing itself.
If the client realizes before the tender that he wants to be able to exert influence, he can choose
Construction team vs. Design Build to include this fact in his starting points. So that the contract between the client provides for a
certain
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 16 of 71
degree of flexibility to be able to exert influence11 without having to immediately adjust the
contract.
Advantages and disadvantages

Design-build Working in a design-build organization has both advantages and disadvantages.
The influence of these advantages and disadvantages on the construction process depends
largely on the project in question. In a design-build organization, the client uses market forces to
arrive at the best possible design for him. In addition, he already has certainty about the price of
his building at an early stage and does not have to deal with the construction process and all the
effort and uncertainties that go with it.
The disadvantage is that when approaching the market, the client must already know exactly
which requirements, wishes and budget the design must meet. Due to competition law, it is not
possible to adjust these principles during the tender. If the client, for whatever reason, still wants to
adjust his basic principles, he must do so in consultation with the preferred provider or even with
the contractor because the contract has already been signed.
Once the contract has been signed, the contractor no longer feels the 'hot breath' of his
competitors down the neck and can use the situation that has arisen to negotiate higher than market
prices for the changes. The client is in a significantly less strong negotiating position than before
the tender.
Another disadvantage12 for the client can manifest itself if the contractor abuses his position as a
designer after the contract has been awarded. If the contractor, when working out his offer, only
has an eye for the cheapest solution and loses sight of quality, this will be at the expense of the
end result for the client. After all, because the contractor has agreed on a fixed price, every euro
he saves will go straight back into his own pocket.
2.1.2 Construction team

The construction team (BT) is also an integrated construction organisation. If we look at who all are
on the design team, even more integrated than DB. In contrast to the design-build design team, the
client has a seat in the design team.
From this position he can influence the end result himself. And there is the possibility to adjust
its starting points if the environment or the design give cause to do so.
When forming a construction team, the client will put together a design team through
various tenders. Based on the underlying principles, the potential design team members make
an offer, trying to distinguish themselves on the basis of a low price and their demonstrable
qualities.
The contractors are also13
asked that, in addition to a price for the design, they also make an offer
for the tail costs of the contract budget14 .
Usually the architect is the first contracted. Together with the client, he will bite the bullet in the
design process. Often in this early stage of the design process, we see interaction between the
design solutions and the
11
Influencing the construction process is the same in the UAV-GC (underlying contract form for a DB organization).
taking on responsibility (Bruggeman, Chao-Duivis, & Koning, 2008)
12
Design optimizations aimed at lower process costs are often associated with lower quality. However, there seems
Construction team vs. Design Build no
13
evidence is available to support this claim.
This usually means three contractors: the architectural, electrical and
mechanical contractor. In practice, however, we see that more or less specialist contractors are involved in the design. Because of the
Graduation research demarcation of the research, we mainly focus on the role of the construction contractor.
14
Niels Nielen The contract budget is the basis for the offer price for the realization of the design.
page 17 of 71
Client
Contractual
relationships
design team
Advisors
Contractor
Installers
Architect
Construction team contractor

pr.
final SO VO DO TO Performance
Figure 4, construction team in the construction process
assumptions. Due to a certain degree of flexibility in the principles of the OG, these can be
improved during the design process. In addition to the architect, various consultants often join the
design team at this stage.
Examples of this are: the structural engineer, a building physicist and a
building cost expert.
When the design process has progressed to the structural or even pre-design15 level , the
contractors are added to the design team. By including the contractors in the design team, the
client expects that the manufacturability of the design will increase and the implementation risks
will therefore be reduced. The relationship with the contractors is a special one, because the client
promises them a certain degree of exclusivity in order to realize the design.
This is because the client promises the contractors that, after the design has been completed,
they may make an exclusive price offer for the realization of the design. If the client is of the
opinion that this price is too high, he may call in an independent construction cost expert, who will
also make a budget of the realisation. If it turns out that a contractor's price is higher than a pre-
agreed percentage of the independent price, the client may still market its design16. However, this
is undesirable for the continuity of the construction process.
As soon as the design is ready for implementation and the client has reached agreement with
the contractors about the realization, a new contract will be entered into for the implementation.
Based on the above description, we arrive at the following definition of a construction team:
A construction team is an integrated construction process organization in which

the representatives of the construction process functions 'take the initiative',
'design' and 'execute' work together to realize the design (Sijpersma & Buur,
2005).
Tasks and responsibilities Based on

the above description, we can say that the tasks that must be performed within the design and
implementation process are all outsourced separately to different market parties. All these different
parties are responsible for their own share in the construction process.
Graduation research
15
Section 2.2.1.
Niels Nielen 16
This agreement is recorded in a so-called 'waiver statement'
page 18 of 71
Variations
For the main variations on the regular construction team, see section 2.1.3.
Advantages and disadvantages

of a construction team Just as with a design-build organization, working in a construction team
has advantages and disadvantages, the influence of which differs per project. The main advantage
is the flexibility of a construction team. The client can steer the design and adjust its starting points,
without immediately getting caught up in all kinds of post-contractual negotiations.
The disadvantage is that the design team can work on the design fairly freely. The various members
are judged on the basis of their effort and not on the result of this effort. If the interests of the client
are different from the interests of the other construction team members, the latter may behave in an
undesirable way by pursuing their own interests at the expense of those of the client.
A short example to illustrate the above: It often happens that an architect makes a design that is so
ambitious that it cannot be realized with the available budget. A contractor will not slow down the
architect in this either, because a more expensive building contributes to the turnover that he can
make during the construction of the design.
2.1.3 Kleissen's Plus KenP sees

the advantages and disadvantages of both the construction team and Design-build. However,
preference is given to the construction team, because KenP has noticed that its clients find it difficult to
let go of designing. In nine out of ten cases, the uncertainties surrounding the projects also lead to
substantial scope changes, which can be better countered in a construction team than with DB. KenP
also sees a greater role for itself in a construction team process than in a design-build process. And the
bigger the role of KenP, the higher her earnings on a project.
Yet people are not blind to the disadvantages of the construction team. KenP believes that it
can optimally serve its client by providing process-based and substantive guidance in the design process.
Kleissen has two handles to make this control possible.
Firstly, it has adjusted the regular construction team agreement on a few points.
Secondly, her project managers are well versed in both process and technical aspects.
Bouwteamplus agreement Kleissen

and Partners have adjusted the regular construction team agreement on a few points, so that
they can prevent undesirable behavior of the construction team members and, should it nevertheless
be necessary, can parry this behavior in an adequate manner.
When entering into the construction team agreement, the contractor commits to the client's
task-setting budget and links this by means of an open budget to the Structural Design that is
already there at that time;
The contractor must submit an open budget for the realization during the design, which
becomes increasingly detailed as the design becomes. In this way, the client can check the
contractor and has certainty about the price at the conclusion of each design phase.
Responsibility for execution risks is allocated to the contractor. He makes the

technical description of the building and checks the drawings during the design
process. This deprives him of the possibility to claim additional work afterwards, during the
execution, due to the incompleteness of the design.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 19 of 71
All construction team members conform to a construction team

coordination agreement, whereby the client can hold everyone, under penalty of a
fine, to their timely and complete input into the design process. It also connects the
members with each other, with regard to the liability for the work delivered.
These adjustments relate in particular to the possibility of checking the input of the construction
team members and allocating responsibility for this input to them. In our research, we understand
an ideal type of construction team, the construction team plus as applied by Kleissen and Partners.
2.1.4 Construction team versus Design-Build

Now that we have an idea of what a construction organization is and more specifically what
working in a construction team and design-build construction organization means. Let's put
the two construction process organizations side by side (table 1).
Construction team(plus) Design Build
Construction process organization integrated integrated
Number of OG contracts Multiple: one contract with A contract for both

every construction team member design as execution with one
side
Contract duration Design phase Design and implementation phase
Compound By tender Based on experience

design team
Award assignment Based on quality/price Based on quality/price

provider design
Risk allocation Spread across construction team Or at the client or at

contractor
Interests OG and Different interests During the tender immediately, after

design team not the award of the work
more
Reward design team For the effort For the result
Flexibility principles high During tender low, na

OG the award greater
Influence OG big small

Table 1, main similarities and differences between build-team and design-build
2.2 The design process explained
Design is a search process in which the optimal solution is sought within

preconditions (Dorée, 1996).
In this section we explore this search process. First, we briefly explain the phasing, which is
commonplace in the Dutch construction industry, the phasing according to NEN 2574.
We then discuss the program phase and the design cycle in turn. We will not limit ourselves to
information from professional literature, but will also cite examples from practice.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 20 of 71
2.2.1 Phasing of the design process

The design process itself is to some extent a black box. The creative process that leads from
nothing to a design cannot be captured in models or standards. In order to make the design
process manageable, it has been agreed to phase it as part of the entire construction process
(figure 5).
The sub-phases correspond to the logical steps that are taken in every design process, whereby
a design is created from coarse to fine. Each sub-phase is concluded with a decision, the decision
to freeze the claims until that moment and to take them to the next sub-phase. To go through the
different phases, different tasks must be performed, a standard distribution is also common for
these tasks.
coordinate
Initiative To design To build
Program Design Performance
pr.
SO VO DO TO Performance
final
Construction process tasks Construction process stages
Construction process sub-stages pr. final = project definition

SO = structural design VO =
preliminary design DO = final
design TO = technical design
Figure 5, tasks and phasing construction process according to NEN 2574 (BNA; ONRI, 2009), (Sijpersma & Buur, 2005)
2.2.2 From problem to program

If we view the design process as the search for a solution, then there must also be a problem.
This problem is the reason for the construction project. The current accommodation no longer
meets the requirements, the desire to profile itself or the emergence of a new organization are all
examples of reasons for a construction project.
If it is agreed that the solution to the problem will be sought in a construction project, the first step
in the construction process has been taken. In the program phase, a client checks what the building
to be designed and built must meet in order to solve his problem. The starting points for the design
are determined in the program phase17. In our research, we distinguish three starting points that
the design team can use:
i. The program of requirements;

II. The available budget; The
III. project environment.
17
Graduation research During the program phase, a start is often made with the design. For example, the choice to build new or to
renovating and making a layout plan for the various functions to be housed are seen as the first steps in the design process.
Niels Nielen
page 21 of 71
During the program phase, the choice must also be made, how to organize the construction
process. Depending on the construction organization, the starting points with which the design team
gets started must be worked out to a greater or lesser extent.
I The schedule of requirements

The schedule of requirements is actually a schedule of requirements and wishes (Duvivier,
2007). The client will include all requirements in the program that the design must meet as a
minimum. These minimum requirements are preconditions for the design team. We can distinguish
between technical requirements and performance requirements. The former already prescribe part
of the solution, while the latter leave as much space as possible to find a solution (example 1).
Example 1, Technical and performance requirements.
A client can have requirements for access to his building in two different ways
express. He can describe the performance that the access must provide:
'The entrance to the building to be designed should be 100 during regular working days
persons per hour access to the building and in exceptional situations 250
persons.'
Or he can include his own solution as a technical requirement:
'In the facade where the entrance to the building should come, an aluminum
revolving door are included with a diameter of 1.5m1. In addition, an additional, to
exterior swinging aluminum door of 1m1 wide to be included in
provide extra access capacity in exceptional cases.'
The wishes of the client are extras. If these are honored in the design, the quality for the
client will increase. However, whether honoring wishes is also worth extra money to the client
will differ per wish and per project. In our research we will use the following definition of a
schedule of requirements (PoR):
The program of requirements is an ordered collection of data that reflects the

accommodation needs of the client. The data serve as a guideline when
designing a building and as an evaluation framework for the quality of the design.
In practice, the possibility for a client to draw up a comprehensive program of requirements

before designing is started is no sinecure. When drawing up a program of requirements, a client
starts from its own frame of reference. If he cannot oversee the possibilities within the design, he
cannot take this into account in his program (Wamelink, 2009).
Example 2, Detailing or optimizing.
An example of detailing is the division of 1,000m2 of desired floor space over 4 different desired building
functions.
An example of optimization is that the requirement to design 1,000 m2 of floor space can be reduced to 800 m2,
Construction team vs. Design Build because the design team manages to cleverly combine various building functions.
to combine.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 22 of 71
Progressive insight is also often the cause of adjustments to the PoR. After all, the client can
only oversee the consequences of his requirements and wishes if a solution is actually devised. If
the program of requirements grows under the influence of the design decisions taken, we speak of
detailing the requirements. If requirements are adjusted because advancing insight gives rise to
this, we speak of optimization (example 2 and Figure 6).
pr. Final
Optimize
SO
Optimize VO
detail
level
of
DO
Detailing
TO
Program requirements Design
Figure 6, interaction between the schedule of requirements and the design
II The available budget In

order to be able to realize all requirements and wishes, the client must have sufficient
financial resources. The budget is one of the most important preconditions that a design
must meet. In the interaction between the SoR and the design, the boundary between what people
want and what is financially feasible will constantly be sought.
The budget is understood to mean the financial resources that the

client makes available for the design and realization of its construction project.
III The project environment

All influences on a construction project, which do not come from the client or the executors of
the construction process, are classified under the project environment. For example, the laws
and regulations and all bodies that monitor compliance with them affect a project. The building must
meet the requirements of the Building Decree, the requirements of the fire brigade regarding fire
safety, environmental legislation and many other legal preconditions.
The law includes options for local residents and other interested parties to influence the
construction process. Another factor that should not be underestimated, especially for the complex
non-residential construction sector that is the subject of research, are political influences. As the
ultimate responsible client, but also as a guardian of the public interest, politicians can leave a
strong mark on construction processes.
We see that both the starting points of the client and external influences determine both
the direction and the preconditions of the search process. Now that these frameworks have
been established, the design team can start with the actual design.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 23 of 71
2.2.3 Designing as a cyclical optimization process During the

initiative phase, the starting points were mapped out. In the case of a construction team, the client
can still adjust the program of requirements and/or the budget during the design, if advancing insight
gives cause to do so. This is less easy in a design-build organization. The client also has less
influence on the detailing of the program of requirements, which depends on the chosen design
solutions, in a design-build than in a construction team.
However, the starting points and the project environment, regardless of the construction organization,
are always the input for the design team to start designing. Taking into account the project
environment, the SoR and the budget indicate the desired direction of the design process. The goal
of the design process is to find design solutions that provide added value for the client.
Principles of design
6. Exit
Principles OG stage,
optimize 1. Determine
evaluate design
Program of design goal and
and process
To demand frames
Cyclic design process 5.

To establish
2. Architect
and
Budget
generates to work out
alternatives
4. Choice
3. Design moment
detail
team
Project environment optimization process
Figure 7, the design cycle (Twentse Techniek Onderneming, 2009) and the interaction possibilities with the project environment
and starting points of the OG
The search process for the optimal design solution seems to follow a fixed pattern.
Within each sub-phase of the design process, a design cycle (example 3 and Figure 7) is
completed one or more times. The interaction possibilities of this cycle with the starting points
and project environment are strongly related to the chosen construction organization. The
following global steps within the design cycle can be distinguished:
1. From the starting points and project environment, the design team determines what needs
to be designed, which requirements this design must meet and what it may cost;
2. With the input from the 1st step, the architect, whether or not together with other
members of the design team, will devise one or more alternatives and submit these
to the other design team members;
3. A process starts within the design team in which all members contribute to the design.
The manufacturer will consider the stability of the solutions; The building physicist
will test whether the alternatives meet the requirements and wishes regarding acoustics
and energy efficiency; The contractor will look at the manufacturability18 of the
Construction team vs. Design Build alternatives. Also becomes
The extent to which use is made of knowledge and experience about the planning, technical elaboration, procurement and
Niels Nielen realization of an architectural design in order to achieve the set project goals. In our research, manufacturability has
page 24 of 71
whether and to what extent the requirements and wishes are met. And
of course what the cost consequences of the different solutions are.
4. Step four is a moment of choice, the search process has yielded one or more suitable
alternatives. The choice can be made, with which solution one wants to continue.
5. The choice is recorded and worked out.
6. The design is evaluated and serves as input for the next cycle.
In addition to the difference in optimization options between BT and DB, it is expected that the
influence of the members of the design team will differ. In a construction team, an architect often
has a leading role, while a contractor19 usually takes on this role in a DB organization.
Example 3 choice for a floor construction:
KenP supervises the construction of a school in Winterswijk. When designing the floor construction, the architect suggested two alternatives.
The first option was a free span from facade to facade, the second a span with a support point in the middle. The free span met the client's
wish to make the layout of the building as flexible as possible, but the second span cost less money and was easier to realize on site.
Everyone contributed something to the design process. The constructor expanded the number of options by presenting different
types of system floors. Now they had the choice of options 1 and 2a, 2b and 2c.
The building physics consultant advised the client to upgrade the soundproofing requirement from the Building Decree, which increased
the package of wishes. The contractor expressed his preference for one of the variants, because it was the easiest to construct on site,
which benefited the construction speed.
KenP's project manager inventoried the pros and cons of all options. An option 2d was then devised within the design team. The
contractor was satisfied with this, because the implementation of this option was the easiest to carry out. The client dropped both wishes
because of the additional costs they would entail and was satisfied with the solution. And the consultants were satisfied, because the
alternative met all the requirements regarding strength, fire safety and the sound insulation requirement from the Building Decree (Appendix I).
Example 4, Manufacturability: construction costs and implementation risk.
When designing a building, the choice must be made as to how to construct the main supporting structure. Three alternatives are available:
1. The supporting structure is made of concrete and will be constructed on site (cast in situ), this option costs €500,000 and entails the risk of
bad weather delaying production;
2. The supporting structure is built from prefabricated concrete elements, this option costs €600,000 and the production on the building site is
much less sensitive to the weather than the poured option.
3. The supporting structure is made of steel columns and beams. This alternative costs €400,000 and entails just as little implementation risk
as the prefab concrete variant.
Graduation research influence on the construction costs of the design, the completeness of the design and the implementation risks arising from the design
(example 4).
Niels Nielen 19
as an integral contractor and therefore the architect's client
page 25 of 71
Example 5, Roof construction Sydney opera house: The opera

house in Sydney is characterized by the unusual shape of the roof, which is reminiscent of the billowing sails of a ship (below).
To be able to construct this complex shape, the following solution was devised:
Figure 8, Sydney Opera House (how stuff works, 2010)
All roof segments are derived from one spherical shape (bottom). As a result, the prefab concrete roof elements could be
manufactured with only a limited number of moulds. Due to this integration of form and manufacturability, the construction of the
exceptional design became a feasible matter.
Figure 9, working drawing roof Sydney Opera House (fabricate it, 2010)
Integration of the expertise of the contractor and architect

Bringing the architect and the contractor together should ensure that their joint input yields
added value for the client. A good example of the convergence of a design solution, which is based
on both the form and the manufacturability of the design, was the roof construction of the opera
house in Sydney (example 5).
We can say that the integration of expertise regarding form and manufacturability contributes to
the quality/price for the client. In other words, a beautiful building, with the desired functionality
for a reasonable price. The construction organizations that are the subject of research both offer
this possibility. However, the interest that the various parties have in a successful integration differs.
2.3 Construction Process Actors
Who is involved in the realization of a construction project is strongly related to the project.
However, four tasks can always be distinguished, just like the objectives that the people who
Construction team vs. Design Build perform these tasks have in their part in the construction process.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 26 of 71
1. The initiator (client)

The initiator of a construction project is usually also the client. In our research, we focus on those
clients who only occasionally initiate construction projects and who therefore greatly benefit from
expert guidance. This is where the professional construction manager comes into play. He will assist
the client in coordinating the construction process, as well as clarifying his accommodation needs.
The goal of the client in the construction process is the realization of accommodation that has an
optimal quality/price ratio for him.
2. The designers
Besides the contractor and the architect, more parties will have a share in the design process. In
this context, various advisers should be considered, such as the structural engineer, the building
physicist or an adviser on fire safety. For the sake of demarcation, however, we limit ourselves to
the architect and the contractor.
Architect
Traditionally, the architect was an all-round client who advised the client from the first stage of
initiative up to and including the completion of a building. However, the architect has lost significant
ground in recent decades. From the position of trusted figure and delegated client, the function of
architect has been reduced to a member of the design team charged with the design (Wamelink,
2009).
The goal of an architect as a market party is the continuity of his organization. He can achieve this
by performing design work for clients for a fee.
But what is at least as important for an architect is reputation, after all, beautiful buildings are a
stepping stone to new assignments. Reference projects often weigh heavily in the award of a contract.
Reasoned from the market approach, an architect will look for a design solution whose
design costs are lower than his fee. But also one with which his client is satisfied and which is
experienced as a success by the construction industry in the Netherlands and can thus serve as a
positive reference for winning new assignments in the future.
In practice, however, we often see behavior that is difficult to explain from a market approach. For
example, an architect sometimes loses sight of the goal of his client, and even of himself as an
entrepreneur. By ignoring both the design and construction budget and the wishes of the client
with his design.
Contractor
In both a construction team and a Design-Build organization, the contractor fulfills two tasks.
While designing, he is part of the design team and is expected to make an effort to make the design
manufacturable.
The goal of a contractor as a market party is the continuity of his company. He can achieve this by
generating a certain turnover that is higher than the costs incurred. A contractor will be satisfied with
the design if he can and may realize it for a price that is higher than the expected construction costs.
We usually distinguish between three contractors, namely:
The construction contractor;

The electrical contractor; The
mechanical engineering contractor.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 27 of 71
In our research we focus on the construction contractor, because his share i. the construction
process is the largest, is strongly related to the shape of the building and because of the necessary
demarcation of the research.
3. The builder
After his designing task, the contractor fulfills that of builder of the design.
This guarantees the continuity of his company and gives him the chance to make a profit by
realizing the building for a price that is lower than the agreed contract price.
4. The coordinator
The coordination function is fulfilled by a construction manager. Who that construction manager
is, however, often wants to differ, just like the client of this one. When working in a construction
team, the construction manager usually works for the client. He is the functional link between the
design team and the client. The client can employ a construction manager himself, but can also hire
an external construction management agency to coordinate the construction process for him.
With a DB construction organization, the client often also uses a professional construction
manager, but the tasks of this manager are different from those of the construction team. He
will now mainly focus on project definition, tendering and monitoring the execution of the
contract. After all, the design process itself is left to the market parties. The providers of a DB
project, usually developing construction companies, form the design team and coordinate the
design process.
An important task for the construction manager is to provide his client with the most objective
possible advice, so that the client can oversee the advantages and disadvantages of all kinds
of choices. An expert construction management company should be able to handle much of a
construction process as routine. As a result, the knowledge and experience available in the
design team can be used as effectively as possible to give full attention to the remaining part, in
which the uniqueness of each building process is included (Wamelink, 2009).
For an independent construction management agency, the construction process is a goal in itself,
they will want to make their contribution at a pre-agreed price or fixed hourly wage. An optimal
solution could therefore be one that requires a lot of effort from the consultants. The goal of the
organization that the construction manager represents is also the continuity of the company.
2.4 Rewards
We saw in section 2.3 that the goals of the various construction process actors differ. The
client expects an optimal price/quality for him. But what is an optimal design for the client can be a
failure for a contractor. He will only see a design as successful if he is allowed to realize it at a
favorable20 price. The architect and other consultants care about their own area of expertise and
will want to provide their input at a favorable price.
All these different goals of the individual members of the design team mean that in a design
process everyone is not necessarily on the same page, which will influence the direction of the
search process. The client of the design team has a powerful tool in hand, namely the
remuneration of the individual members of the design team. The remuneration system is the
Construction team vs. Design Build way in which settlement takes place between the contracting authority and the market party
(Regieraad Bouw, 2009). The
Graduation research
Niels Nielen 20
A price that is higher than the costs he incurs to realize the building
page 28 of 71
reward system is one of the most powerful but also most dangerous tools for influencing
people's behavior (Paape, 2008).
Rewarding as a whole or individually

We make a first distinction between rewarding the design team as a whole, or all members
individually.
With design-build, the provider is rewarded based on the design result delivered by the
design team. The client will award the contract to the supplier who has offered the design
with the best quality/price.
We can say that the goals of both have been aligned during the tender period.
The provider of a design-build project, which is in fact the client of the design team, will
make agreements with the individual members of that team about the remuneration
they receive for their work. The provider will try to make this fee dependent on the
outcome of the tender. In this way he stimulates the members to arrive at the best
possible design. He also spreads the risk of not winning the assignment.
However, design team members will only want to be rewarded in this way if their input into
the construction process depends on the realization of the design. An example to illustrate
this consideration: 'A structural engineer will be very keen on winning the tender if he is
allowed to make all the working drawings and calculations for the realization of the design.'
In a construction team, all members of the design team are individually rewarded by the
client. Due to European competition law, this is usually done on a fixed amount basis.
However, we often see that during design, the effort of the members is greater than
previously estimated. Sometimes this results in an extension of their assignment21 .
Reward for the effort or for the result

We see that in design-build the contractor is assessed on the result of the design
process, namely his integral offer. The reward consists of the assignment for the work. If,
after the award, the contractor has realized the design as agreed, he will receive a fixed
amount (lump sum) for this.
In a construction team, where the client enters into an agreement with each individual
member of the team, the members will be rewarded for their effort. Because the
result of the effort has no influence on the remuneration, the construction team lacks
the financial incentive to look for the optimum quality/price together. In practice, we see
that for this reason, other mechanisms22 are built in to ensure that the design process
is sufficiently efficient and effective23.
In a construction team, the opposite even applies to a contractor. The higher the
construction costs of the design, the higher the turnover that he can achieve on the
project. So if a contractor makes an effort to reduce construction costs, he is cutting
himself in the fingers.
21
If we view the designers in the design team as professionals and the direct hard relationship between price and performance is
Construction team vs. Design Build absent, the designer's primary focus is not on improving efficiency. The designer will focus on expanding his assignment, because
he says this will increase efficiency (van der Krogt & Vroom, 1991).
22
Graduation research See section 2.1.3
23
Efficient and effective will have a different meaning for all members of the design team. In our research, under
Niels Nielen effective and efficient, means: 'effective and efficient for the client.'
page 29 of 71
2.5 In conclusion
The construction process organization says something about the division of

tasks and responsibilities in the construction process. With the choice for a construction team
or design build organization, the choice has been made for an integrated organizational form.
However, there are some differences between the two organizational forms. In a construction
team, the client is part of the design team, while in a design build organization he is more remote.
In a design-build organization, the client only enters into one contractual relationship, namely with
the provider who offers him the best quality/price in a design.
This provider, who has become the contractor after signing the contract, will then build
the design offered for a fixed price.
He is therefore judged twice on the result of his effort. With a construction team, the client
all enters into bilateral agreements with the various construction team members. Each of
these is paid for their efforts in the design process.
We saw that design is a cyclical optimization process, in which an optimal result is sought. In
both construction organizations it is possible during this process to make use of the implementation
expert par excellence: the contractor. However, the organizational form does influence the
possibilities of optimizing the starting points of the client during the design process.
In order to properly place the above findings, a number of theories will be explored in the
next chapter, which will give us insight into the differences found between construction team and
design.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 30 of 71
3 Theoretical framework
Why do the members of the design team behave the way they do? In chapter three we discuss various literature
and theories that help answer this question. First, we zoom in on the various possible search directions in the
design process and how these can contribute to the perceived quality/price for the client (section 3.1). In section
3.2 we consider designers as professionals; what kind of people are they and why do they act the way they do?
The transaction cost theory explains why construction organizations are open to opportunistic behavior (Section
3.3). The agency theory focuses on counteracting this behavior. Under what circumstances is it better to enter
into a relationship based on a best efforts obligation and when on the basis of an obligation of result (section 3.4)?
3.1 Cyclic Optimization Process
We saw in chapter two that design is a cyclical optimization process, a search for the best possible solution for the
client's housing problem. But what is the optimal solution? And in what directions can we look for that optimal
solution?
3.1.1 Quality/price
The effectiveness24 of the design process is difficult to measure. Not because we can't say anything about it, after
all, everyone has an opinion about a design, but more because there is no objective judgment about it. What one
person finds beautiful, another finds ugly; Where one judges a design mainly on functionality, the other looks more at
the aesthetics, while a third will mainly be guided by the costs associated with the construction of the building (Wamelink,
2009).
Quality The
former chief government architect Tjeerd Dijkstra (2001) does not venture to use a method by which the quality
of a design can be assessed and determined in an absolute sense. He does mention a number of concepts that
play an important role in the assessment of architectural quality. In our research we will limit ourselves to two of
those concepts that together provide a valuable assessment of the quality of the design, namely:
1. Aesthetics. Is the building perceived as beautiful/successful?
2. Functionality. Does the building offer the intended functionality? To what extent is
the design tailored to use (Dorée, 1996)?
The choice to judge the quality according to the criteria 'aesthetics' and
'functionality', was created from pragmatic considerations. For example, there is no standardized method
available to assess the quality of a design (Dorée, 1996). Also, when doing our case studies, by presenting
these criteria to the respondents, we can quickly assess the quality of the design, without creating confusion about what
quality actually is.
Process efficiency
Because the quality/price experienced by the client depends not only on the quality of the design, but also on the
Construction team vs. Design Build price he pays for the realization of the
24
Graduation research The effectiveness or efficiency of a process relates to the end result. Efficiency or effectiveness, on the other hand, refers to the
extent to which resources are used to achieve the end result. In our research, we consider effective and efficient from the perspective of the
Niels Nielen client.
page 31 of 71
project must pay. Are the process costs also the basis of the experienced quality / price? With
regard to process costs, we distinguish between design costs and construction costs. The design
costs are incurred during the design process and the construction costs are the result of the design
decisions made. For the client, the design costs that he pays to the design team count. And the
construction costs that he pays to those who realize the design. For the design team members, the
difference between the design costs paid and the operating costs incurred determines the earnings
on the project. For the builder(s), the difference between the construction costs paid and the
operating costs incurred determines the earnings on the project. We see that the goals of the client
and design team members differ, which can cause tensions.
Operating cost
Design process Design costs
design
Operating costs
Process costs
execution
Design Construction costs
Quality/price
design
Degree to which OG experiences

design as beautiful
Quality
Degree to which design

offers desired functionality
Figure 10, Process costs (Dorée, 1996), quality and quality/price design
Quality/ price of the end result

For our research, we arrive at the following definition of the quality/price ratio experienced by the
client:
The relationship between the quality of the design and the price it has to pay for its
realization, as experienced by the client.
Which of these criteria weigh more heavily depends strongly on the project. Do you have a large
or small budget available? What are the aesthetic expectations like? How important is functionality.
The aim of the optimization process is to achieve the best possible ratio for the client.
3.1.2 Optimization directions Dorée

(1996) distinguishes a number of different optimization directions that, depending on the
Construction team vs. Design Build demand, contribute more or less positively to the quality/price ratio experienced by the client. In our
research, which is limited to the design and realization phase, we distinguish two optimization
Graduation research directions that can be pursued during design:
Niels Nielen
page 32 of 71
1. Optimizations aimed at higher quality. The quality benefits from one

two partial optimizations:
Optimizations that increase the usefulness of the design (functional -

effectiveness);
Optimizations that make the design more beautiful (aesthetic –

effectiveness);
2. Optimizations aimed at the process. The process benefits from the following two
partial optimizations:
Optimizations that reduce construction costs (implementation efficiency);
Optimizations where the design costs will be lower (design efficiency).
These four partial optimization directions strongly correlate with each other. The pursuit of high
architectural quality often goes hand in hand with high costs, and reducing costs often goes
hand in hand with lower quality. The art of design is the search for the optimal ratio between
quality and price.
Because the goals of both the client and the different design team members differ (figure 10),
there will be a certain tension in the design team. The client must be alert to proposed design
solutions that have a negative influence on the quality/price of the end result, so-called sub-
optimisations.
Optimizing the starting points During the

design process, the balance is constantly made between what is possible and what it costs. We
often see that the SoR is handled pragmatically25. By settling for a slightly lower quality on one
point, money can be freed up to achieve a slightly higher quality on another point. Due to a certain
degree of flexibility in the starting points of the client, the optimization potential for the design team
increases. When optimizing the starting points during design, we speak of the integration of program
and design.
3.2 Designers and their drivers
To gain insight into the design process, it is useful to view the participants in this process (the
designers26) through a theoretical lens. What kind of people are they and why do they act the way
they do. In addition to their own background, the objectives of the organization they represent also
play a role in their behaviour. In this section, the motives of the participants in the design process
will be discussed.
The designers as professionals

Designers are professionals (Dorée, 1996). Professionals go through a long training
course and prefer to work independently, paying little attention to the organizational cohesion of
their work. They are not very open to criticism from laymen, only criticism from (esteemed)
colleagues is accepted. This attitude is motivated by the fact that they perform complex tasks that
require technical competence and knowledge (Mintzberg, 1979).
Graduation research
25
See section 2.2.2.
Niels Nielen 26
In our research, we consider both the contractor and the architect, both members of the design team, as designers.
page 33 of 71
For professionals, programs and references are the knowledge base of their actions.
Programs can be described as the behavior that the professional employs to solve a
problem. He gets the references from his own experience or from the practice of colleagues.
When a professional receives an assignment, he chooses an approach to arrive at a suitable
solution. However, if the problem is not yet clear, the professional will try to interpret the problem
in such a way that he can still come up with a solution. For this reason, a designer seems more
solution-oriented than problem-oriented (Dorée, 1996) and (Wamelink, 2009).
We call the design space that the designer is granted by a client the discretionary space. We see
that the organizational fit of the designer is strongly related to the experienced and granted
discretionary space. How the designer uses the discretionary space is strongly related to his
knowledge base and the underlying remuneration system.
Designer in a construction organization

Every design team, whether it concerns a construction team or a design-build organization, will
receive a certain degree of design space from the client. In a construction team this is laid down in
the project definition, in the case of design-build in the preconditions and assessment criteria for
the tender. In both cases, both the architect and the contractor have a design role. Based on their
knowledge base and available references, both professionals will use a different program when
looking for an optimal solution.
3.3 Transaction Cost Theory (TKT)
From the transaction cost theory, the link can be made between the conclusion of a contract and
the choice for a particular construction organization (Dorée, 1996). The basic assumption here is
that the total cost of a service or good is composed of both production and transaction costs (Winch,
2001). The decision whether to organize certain activities internally or to outsource them to the
market is made by comparing the price of both options. The cheapest option is preferred over the
others.
The founder of transaction cost theory, Williamson (1973), argues that the most
interesting problems associated with economic organization can be explained by human
behavior propositions and a set of related transaction-dependent variables.
Behavioral propositions
The two behavioral propositions influencing the transaction are (Dorée, 1996):
1. Bounded rationality: people want to act rationally, but are only able to do so to a limited
extent.
2. Opportunism: economic actors may try to take advantage of unforeseen situations, even if
doing so would harm the interests of others.
Transaction-dependent variables
The TKT assumes that a number of transaction-dependent variables influence the degree of
(undesirable) human behaviour. Williamson (1979) lists the following three variables: (1)
Construction team vs. Design Build uncertainty; (2) frequency and (3) transaction specificity. In addition to these three, Dorée (1996)
also mentions (4) the duration of the transaction.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 34 of 71
1. Uncertainty
Bounded rationality as a behavioral factor is related to the degree of uncertainty associated with a
transaction (Winch, 2001). People involved in the conclusion of a contract intend to act rationally, but are
limited by their own thinking capacity and can therefore never oversee all the factors and consequences
associated with the conclusion of a contract.
The position of power of the contractors changes at the conclusion of the contract, this shift is called
the fundamental transformation . Ex ante contract it is possible to enforce contract terms through the market.
Ex-post contract, the parties are bound together and forced to negotiate bilaterally (Dorée, 1996).
Four uncertainties are associated with this transformation. Ex-ante contract there is uncertainty about the
suitability of the potential contractor (1) and the completeness of the contract (2). Due to the limited rationality
of people, a contract can never be completely complete. Ex-post contract there are unforeseen events (3) and
possible opportunistic behavior of the contractor (4).
2. Frequency Winch
(2001) mentions the learning effect as a third behavioral proposition, in addition to opportunism
and bounded rationality. If the same transaction occurs more often, the chance that those involved
will have to incur fewer and fewer transaction costs due to the learning effect.
3. Transaction specificity
Transaction-related investments are inputs that are specifically used for one transaction and can therefore
no longer be used alternatively without loss of value. Potential problems with this phenomenon arise especially
after the fundamental transformation (ex-post contract). Once a contractor has started work, the cost of
replacing them will be high, both in money and project continuity (Winch, 2001). The assumption that people
act opportunistically if given the opportunity means that the probability of opportunistic behavior is strongly
related to the transactional nature of the investment. Williamson (1981) mentions transaction specificity as the
most important characteristic for considering a transaction.
4. Transaction duration
The assumption is that as the transaction duration increases, the transaction risks will
increase and the transaction costs will increase (Dorée, 1996).
Transaction cost theory and the construction process

Contracts for the production of built objects are subject to uncertainty, low frequency, high transaction specificity and long
duration. The transactions by which the construction organization is formed are therefore open to opportunistic behavior
(Dorée, 1996).
3.3.1 The transaction cost theory and the design process If we look at the
construction team and a design-build organization from the perspective of transaction cost theory, a number of
things stand out. When concluding a construction team contract, the fundamental transformation takes place
Construction team vs. Design Build early in the design process, while in Design-build the contract is only concluded when the design is well
advanced. As a result, when concluding a construction team agreement, there will be much more result uncertainty
Graduation research for the OG than with
Niels Nielen
page 35 of 71
a DB contract. However, the duration of the construction team agreement is shorter, which reduces
the uncertainties for the realization of the design.
3.4 Agency theory
The agency theory focuses on the relationship between the contracting party (principal)
who delegates work to the contracting party (agent). The agency theory attempts to solve two
problems between the principal and agent (Eisenhardt, 1989).
1. Principal-agent problems arise when the goals of the principal and agent differ and the
principal cannot properly verify what exactly the agent is doing. Due to this information
asymmetry , the agent may be inclined to act more in his own interest than in that of the
principal.
Two premises explain the principal-agent problem. Moral hazard refers to insufficient
effort by the agent if he or she is not at risk for his or her actions. Adverse selection arises
because the principal is not sure of the suitability of the agent when they enter into a
relationship.
enter into.
2. Risk distribution problem. If client and contractor are different

consider the risks associated with the work involved in their relationship.
Agency theory seeks the solution to the problem outlined in the correct form of contract27. Is it
better to contract on the basis of a best efforts obligation or an obligation of result?
Proposition
1. If the contract between the principal and the agent is result-oriented, then the agent will
more likely to act in the interests of the principal
2. If the principal has information to control the agent's behavior,

Positivist
then the agent will be more inclined to act in the interests of the principal
3. Information systems are positively related to a contract with

effort obligation and negative to a contract with an obligation of result.
4. Result uncertainty is positively related to a contract with

Principal
effort obligation and negative to a contract with an obligation of result
5. Conflicting goals of principal and agent are negatively related to a best efforts contract and
positively to a result contract.
6. Task normalization is positively related to a best effort contract

and negative to a performance obligation contract.
7. The measurability of the end result is negatively related to a contract with an effort obligation and
positively to a contract with an obligation of result.
template
agent
8. The contract term is positively related to a best efforts contract

and negative to a performance obligation contract
extension
principal
Simple
Table 2, propositions agency theory (Eisenhardt, 1989)
27
Graduation research With design-build, there is no contract between the client and the suppliers during the design phase. However, there is a relationship,
namely that of the client, which promises the assignment (reward) for the project to the design teams.
Niels Nielen
page 36 of 71
Presuppositions Agency Theory Eisenhardt

(1989) distinguishes two schools of thought within agency theory: positivist and principal agent. The
first assumes conflicting goals of principal and agent and describes mechanisms that counter
opportunistic behavior by the agent. The second provides guidance on which contract type is most
suitable, based on various project-dependent variables. Both currents are complementary.
Table 2 lists the propositions regarding the agency theory. The first two belong to the positivist
movement, the first four form the simple agency model. This simple model is based on the
following assumptions:
The goals of the principal and agent conflict

The outcome of the transaction is easily measurable
And the agent is more risk averse than the client
An extension of the simple model, among other things, questions its presuppositions and
assumes that variability of these also influences the suitability of the different contract forms. In
the extended model, job normalization and contract duration also influence the suitability of the
contract form.
Agency theory and the design process If

design is done in a DB organization, then the reward depends on the result and the designers,
according to the positivist agency theory, will act more in the interest of the client. However, if the
client does not yet know what kind of result he is aiming for with his construction project, it is better
to contract the design team on the basis of a best efforts obligation. With a higher degree of result
uncertainty, a construction team organization therefore seems more appropriate than a DB
organization.
Conflicting goals
Contract duration
-
Information
task normalization
+ asymmetry
+
Fitness
-
behavioral
Information Measure costs contract
-
systems behaviour +
-
Suitability
Risk aversion Price transfer risks
principal - - result-oriented
contract
+
+
Risk aversion Costs measure

agent results
-
+
-
Result Measurability
uncertainty result
Figure 11, Influence of transactional variables on outcome-oriented or behavioral contract suitability, based on principal agency
Graduation research
theory.
Niels Nielen
page 37 of 71
If the client is an expert himself, or if he is represented by an expert, the contractor will be

inclined to act more in the interest of the client. This applies even more to a contract based
on a best efforts obligation than to a result-oriented contract. According to agency theory, it is
therefore always wise to ensure that the information asymmetry between the client and the
contractor is not too great. In a construction team this is even more important than with DB.
3.5 In conclusion
For our research we distinguish (1) optimizations aimed at quality and (2) optimizations
aimed at the process28. If the balance between the two optimization directions matches the desired
quality/price for the client, we speak of integration of design and implementation. If the starting
points are optimized during design, we speak of integration of program and design.
In a design organization we deal with different professionals. The two main members of the
design team are the contractor and the architect. For both, other programs and references form
the basis of their actions. Based on his background, a contractor will strive for optimal process
control. While an architect, a creative person, will strive for architecture. These differences in
knowledge base and programs are of great added value, but in the case of large information
asymmetry, together with the remuneration system used, can also cause sub-optimization.
The formation and functioning of a construction organization is open to opportunistic

behaviour. To counteract this behavior, a client has a number of possible options. He can
reward the designers for the result of their efforts, as happens in a construction team. As a
result, the goals of the provider and the client are put on an equal footing and the provider,
under the pressure of the competition, will strive for an optimal end result.
He can also choose to reward the design team for the effort made.
Because the goals of the designers and the client are not the same, there is a risk of undesirable
behavior by the designers, which is at the expense of the end result. By checking the designers
and ensuring that the information asymmetry between the client and the designers does not
become too great, the designers will be more inclined to commit themselves to an optimal end
result.
If the client's request needs to be optimized during the design process, contractors can try to
take advantage of this in a post-contractual situation, at the expense of the client. From the
agency theory, working with an effort-oriented contract (construction team) is even recommended
if there is still a lot of uncertainty about the outcome of the design process.
In chapter four, the findings from chapters two and three are combined in a number of
assumptions. These assumptions are then the starting point for the case studies.
Graduation research
28
Niels Nielen Lower costs
page 38 of 71
4 Research perspective
Why is the design process in a Design-build construction organization fundamentally different from
the design process in a construction team? The answer to this question seems to lie in (a) the
composition of the design team and the incentives to ensure that the expertise of the contractor
and architect are integrated into the design process, resulting in a better design than if that were
not the case would be. And (b) the influence of changes in the client's assumptions on the design
effectiveness and remuneration of the design team. In chapter four we establish the starting points
for the research (4.1) and formulate a number of assumptions (4.2) that we want to test in practice.
4.1 Principles for graduation research
Regardless of the organizational form chosen, a client will always want a beautiful building with
the desired functionalities for a reasonable price. Which of these criteria the client attaches the
most value to will differ per project. We translate the degree to which the design offers the client
the desired quality/price into the design effectiveness.
When we consider the design effectiveness of the design process from the point of view of
the differences between the construction team and Design-Build, we arrive at a relationship as
shown in figure 12.
Competitive pressure
providers
Integration expertise
Contractual Design
Hedging + architect and
contractor
+ effectiveness
+ -
+
Principles OG known
and explicit
+ -
-
-
Optimization Possibility
Design space
+ options + opportunism
Flexibility +
basic principles OG
+
Changes in Mail contract
basic principles OG
+ amendments

Figure 12, causal relationship diagram between design process and behavior of architect and contractor
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 39 of 71
In both the construction team and DB, the contractor and the architect are members
of the design team. The aim of this is to bring together expertise on architecture and
manufacturability, thereby increasing design effectiveness.
The architect is the expert in coming up with solutions for the client's
accommodation problem. He is the expert to translate the client's
expectations, both aesthetically and functionally, into a design.
The contractor is the expert in the development of the design. His expertise can
contribute to the manufacturability of the design and, based on his technical and process
knowledge, he can also adjust the architect if he does not sufficiently take into account
the design efficiency.
In a Design-Build design organization, the tender design team is challenged by

competition. The better the final design meets the expectations of the client, the
greater the chance that the tendering design team will win the tender.
In a construction team, the members of the design team are stimulated by the underlying
contract. The contractor and architect must make an effort to meet their contractual
obligations, which encourages them to harmonize and integrate their two areas of
expertise. If they do not do this or do so insufficiently, the client can decide to terminate
the collaboration or go through (one of) the design cycles again, without paying an extra
fee in return.
The contractual cover says something about the extent to which the client's principles are
linked to the remuneration of the designers through the contract. In order to be able to
cover the basic principles contractually, the client must have them clear and also be able
to make them explicit. After all, it must be possible to test the result of the design process
against something.
If the starting points of the OG are known and made explicit, then the design space
for the design team has also been broadly determined. The design space for the
design team is limited by the requirements and wishes of the client, the available budget
and the project environment. If the boundaries are not yet fixed, the design team has
more design space.
The design space allocated to the design team influences the optimization
potential in the design process. The more freedom, the more space the design team has
to look for design solutions that provide the client with the best quality/price ratio.
However, there is a risk that (members of) the design team will misuse the
allocated design space for their own gain. Design solutions can be pursued in which
self-interest prevails over that of the client.
This can lead to design solutions that are sub-optimal for the client.
If the starting points of the client have a certain degree of flexibility during the design,
Construction team vs. Design Build then this creates possibilities. The principles can be improved, but changes can also affect
the underlying contracts.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 40 of 71
If changes affect the underlying contracts, the members of the design team may try to
maximize their earnings at the expense of the client. They have the option to do so
because of their post-contractual negotiating position.
4.2 Assumptions
We have translated the above into four assumptions, which explain the main differences
between designing in a construction team and design-build design organization.
4.2.1 Integration of architect and contractor expertise Both

design organizations are integrated organisations. By having the contractor and the architect
make the design together, the client expects added value to be realised. The architect is the
expert in the field of architecture, the contractor is the expert in the field of manufacturability. By
integrating these areas of expertise, design solutions can be created that positively contribute
to design effectiveness. However, the incentive to achieve this integration differs between the two
organizational forms.
Assumption I
At DB, the integration of expertise across architecture and process is positively impacted by
competitive pressure.
i. If the design team works under competitive pressure, the architect and contractor will
better match their expertise.
Assumption II
In a construction team, the integration of architecture and process can be achieved by making the
principles of the client part of the underlying contracts29 .
II. If the starting points30 of the client are contractually covered, the architect and
contractor will better coordinate their expertise.
4.2.2 Optimize the design process

In the most ideal situation, a client knows exactly what the design must meet before designing is
started. In practice, however, we see that this is almost never the case. As a result of advancing
insight, changes in the project environment or simply because the client does not yet know what his
expectations are, he adjusts or expands his starting points during the design process.
Assumption III & IV
If a client opts for a DB construction organization, he must have already thought carefully about the
criteria with which he can assess the designs of the offering parties31. The condition for good
design offers is that the program of
29
Construction team vs. Design Build The question of whether this means of pressure is just as effective as the pressure of the competition cannot be answered
positively from the literature. Because of the conflicting interests of the contractor and client and the certainty that contracts, by definition,
are not complete. An integration of architectural and process optimizations does not seem obvious.
30
Graduation research The condition is that the starting points are known, measurable and linked to the remuneration of the design team members.
31
If the various providers make a design for the tender for the DB assignment, it is from
Niels Nielen competition point of view, it is not possible to adjust the requirements and wishes before the time of tendering.
page 41 of 71
requirements has been drawn up as completely and explicitly as possible. However, whether the
requirements and wishes package remains stable after the tender is not always in the hands of the client.
After the DB assignment has been awarded to one of the providers, there is a contract for both
the design and the implementation. If a client wishes to adjust its starting points in this post-
contractual situation and these adjustments affect the underlying contract, the design team members
can charge higher prices for adjustments to the design than they would have done before the
contract was awarded.
In a construction team, changes in the principles can also affect the underlying contracts.
However, because a construction team agreement does not extend beyond the design, the
influence on this agreement will be much smaller than with a DB contract.
The room a design team is given to optimize can work both ways. It increases the number of
possible design solutions, increasing the chance of finding a solution that delivers the desired
quality/price. But it also offers the design team the opportunity to let their own interests prevail
over those of the client when looking for a solution. Especially if they are in a post-contractual
negotiating position.
III. If the principles of the OG have a certain degree of flexibility, the design effectiveness
will increase.
IV. If the principles of the OG have a certain degree of flexibility, the opportunities for
the design team members to behave opportunistically increase.
4.3 In conclusion
The main difference between the construction team and Design-Build seems to lie in the
incentives to ensure the integration of the design and execution expertise in the design process. And
the influence that changes in the starting points of the client have on the optimization possibilities in
the design process.
The assumptions are the starting point for the case studies. By doing case studies we want to
investigate whether our assumptions are confirmed, or maybe even undermined in practice. In
addition, the case studies are a means to increase insight into design processes.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 42 of 71
5 Case studies
Based on the bureau's research and discussions with various experts, a good picture has emerged of the design
processes within a construction team and design-build construction organization. Thanks to these insights, we are
increasingly able to explain why the end result of the two design organizations will differ. To test and enrich our insights,
we will conduct a number of case studies.
What doing a case study entails and why it is important for our research
suitable research method is discussed in section 5.1. In section 5.2, we explain which criteria we use when selecting
suitable cases.
Which data we want to collect with the case studies and why this data is important to us
importance is discussed in section 5.3. The how and why of the case studies, the decision model for the choice of cases,
the interview protocol and the interview questions can be found in appendix 2.
5.1 Case study research
In the previous chapters we have sketched a picture of the design processes at two different
construction organisations. The next step in our research is to study these design processes in practice. We call this
research method a case study (Swanborn, 2008). A case study is particularly suitable for research in which the research
question is a how or why question (Yin, 2008).
However, there are more reasons to choose the case study as a research strategy.
The design processes at both construction organizations work according to different mechanisms. The behavior
of the designers in particular influences the end result. Because no infallible and universal theories will be found
when studying this behavior (Flyvbjerg, 2006), it is important to include the context in which the design process takes place
in the research.
The dynamics and context that will influence the different design processes can be well understood through case study
research (Eisenhardt, 1989).
5.2 Which projects are eligible?
We study different design processes, the most important characteristic of which is the underlying construction
organizational form, namely Design-Build or Bouwteam. To test our assumptions, more criteria are important, which
determine whether a project is suitable research material. From the initial definition of the research, we look for
utilitarian complex projects that have been realized for (semi) government clients. We want to analyze different
design cycles from the design process of these projects, by evaluating concrete design examples from different
angles (client, contractor and architect).
During the exploratory talks with the various experts and the study of the literature, there appears to be quite a difference of
opinion about what a construction team and design-build actually is. When selecting the case studies, we will use the
following criteria to determine whether the underlying organizational form was a construction team:
During the design phase, the client had entered into a construction team agreement with both the
contractor and the architect.
Construction team vs. Design Build The contractor was involved in the design team at an early stage. In any case, no later than preliminary
design.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 43 of 71
The Design-Build construction organizations are characterized by:
The assignment for both design and implementation was integrated into one contract.
The contractor has taken on the design and implementation risks. The entire design
has been made by the provider/contractor. A possible exception to this is an image/
quality plan from the client, to indicate what his expectations are.
The predicate utilitarian complex can also cause confusion. We consider a project as such when:
The client is (semi)government.

It is a prestige project.
There are preferably several users.
And the project serves a public interest.
A number of examples from the design must be available for the projects that qualify, so
that we can check whether the expertise of the contractor and architect has been integrated. And
what the influence of the chosen design solution was on costs and quality. There must also be a
number of examples available of changes in the principles of the OG in order to determine what
influence these changes have had on quality and costs.
Considering all the previous criteria when selecting our cases, we expect that the supply of
suitable cases will be limited. Within the remaining potential projects, we look for cases with
maximum variation in the variables of our assumptions. This maximum variation32 is expected
to provide us with the most information (Flyvbjerg, 2006).
If the number of available case studies and time permit, we would preferably conduct 6
case studies. three Design-Build works and three Bouwteam works. It probably won't be too hard
to find projects that prove the rule, but we're looking for those that disprove the rule.
5.3 Information Sources and Data
After selecting the suitable projects, which can serve as case study material, an attempt will
be made to identify the client or his representative. This key informant can provide us with
information about the suitability of the project and the expected willingness to cooperate with the
investigation. To create a clear picture of the research, a graduation flyer will be sent to the various
key figures, containing a summary of the research and the expectations for the case studies.
Once the final case studies have been selected, the actual research will begin. The
following steps will be taken for each project:
1. First we collect general information about the project, is the project suitable case
study material?
2. If the case study provides suitable research material, an interview will be scheduled with
the client's construction manager involved. Together we will look for: (a) examples from
the design process, which are possible
Whether or not a contract and the influence on the design effectiveness, whether or not competition and the influence
Niels Nielen on the design effectiveness, whether or not flexibility and the influence on design effectiveness/opportunism are possible.
page 44 of 71
serve as a design example and (b) cases where the principles of the client have changed
during the design process.
3. Interviews with the client, the construction contractor involved and the
architect.
5.3.1 Linking data - assumptions In the interviews,

we will try to reconstruct the design process. By interviewing three different parties, the
validity of the research result increases. Because everyone enters the construction process with
different interests, there is also the expectation that their perception of the process will differ. After
the interviews, we want to be able to answer the following questions:
1. What was the role of the different design team members and how did they do it
entered?
2. What was the incentive for the design team, the contract or the
competition?
3. To what extent has the incentive from question 2 contributed to the integration of the
expertise of the contractor and architect in the realization of the final design solution?
4. Has a certain degree of flexibility in the starting points contributed to the design
effectiveness?
5. Did the changes in the principles provide options for the design team members?
to abuse their position?
6. What is the context of the design process and are there factors that can be named
have been crucial to the course?
7. Which construction organization do respondents prefer?

Why?
8. Do the respondents agree with the assumptions from chapter 4 and

why or why not?
After answering the above questions, we can make a statement about the influence of the
construction organization form on the integration of the expertise of contractor and architect in the
design process. And the possibilities offered by both construction organizations to deal adequately
with changes in the client's starting points.
5.4 In conclusion
The case studies are a study of design-build and construction team design processes in practice.
The case studies provide us with insight and can confirm or contradict the assumptions. The aim
of the case studies is to enrich our understanding of the differences between the construction
team and design-build. In chapter 6 the findings of the case studies will be summarized.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 45 of 71
6 Designing in practice
In three construction team projects and two33 design-build projects, we tried to find out how the
design process went and why it went that way. In this chapter we summarize our findings and
compare them with the assumptions defined in chapter 4. In section 6.1 we summarize all six design
processes studied. In section 6.2 we clearly compare the outcome of the case studies with our
previously formulated assumptions. In section 6.3 we make an inventory of the deviations found. In
appendix 334, all minutes of the interviews and extensive summaries of the case studies are included.
6.1 Six design processes in a row
We have analyzed six design processes. We looked at what happened during the design process,
what the input of the various design team members was and how they came up with the design.
Because the design processes are rich in information and the context is of great importance and in
order to place the course in the right perspective, we describe the different cases in this section on
the basis of a short reconstruction. The concrete design examples presented to the respondents have
been incorporated in the reconstruction. How often our assumptions were or were not valid in the
examples discussed can be found in section 6.2.
6.1.1 Case 1: Rehousing residential community

Due to various inner-city redevelopments, a municipality has felt the need to relocate the existing
housing of a residential community. The residential community rents the building from a foundation.
Because the inner-city redevelopments were initiated by the municipality, the foundation has agreed
with the municipality that it will finance the relocation in its entirety.
The contract
The design team, which is organized as a construction team, included a construction
management agency, a contractor, an architect and the two principals (the foundation and the
municipality). In the construction team agreements, the following matters were laid down:
The budget for construction;

The design fee (fixed price);
The program of requirements;
The preliminary design and a distance agreement (in the agreement with the contractor);
The design process

The architect was the one who took and kept the initiative throughout the design
process. One moment has been crucial for the design process. When the draft permit was
ready, the city council drew a line through it. As an additional requirement, two existing monumental
facades had to be included in the building plan.
It was immediately clear that this requirement had negative consequences for the progress,
efficiency of the building (layout and use) and process costs. The architect, in close consultation with
the municipality, made an alternative design, in which the other construction team members were
more or less spectators. The design is now
33 One case study involved a design-build project, in which we looked at both the design of the preferred provider and the design of one of
Graduation research the parties that did not win the work.
34
Because the minutes of the interviews contain confidential information and it has been agreed with the respondents that
Niels Nielen the projects are anonymised in the final report, appendix 3 is not part of the public report
page 46 of 71
ready for implementation, but there are discussions about the costs and the quality to be achieved.
Especially between the foundation and the municipality. The role of the contractor has been
limited to introducing a number of cost-cutting proposals at the end of the design process.
Optimizing Principles The

foundation's program of requirements left little to the imagination. The main task of the foundation
was to ensure that all requirements were included in the design and that no concessions were
made to the functional quality. The high architectural value has been achieved through the
intercession of the architect and the municipality.
Due to the flexibility in the starting points, a building with a high architectural value has been realized.
Opinions are divided on whether this flexibility has contributed to the quality of the design. The
municipality and architect are very satisfied. The foundation, because of the higher costs and the
delay in planning, certainly not. The contractor is reasonably indifferent to what has happened, although
the implementation risks have increased considerably with the preservation of the monumental facades.
Characteristic of the design process were:
The dual role of the municipality (financier and guardian of the public interest) has added
the necessary complexity to the design process.
After releasing the budget and adding the two monumental facades, the design process
ran out of control, and it was not until the final pricing that the municipality became
aware of the major budgetary overruns.
The contractor has adopted a reactive attitude during the design process.
6.1.2 Case 2: New construction Public school community As part of an

urban development master plan, a new school is being realized opposite the station in a
municipality in the east of the Netherlands. In addition to a building with a teaching function,
there will be a building with 4 sports halls. A parking level will be built under the sports halls,
which will provide space for 100 cars and 1,000 bicycles.
The design team, which is organized as a construction team, consisted of: a contractor, an
architect, two clients (the school as user and the municipality as financier) and a construction
management agency.
The contract
In the construction team agreements, the following matters were laid down:
The budget;
The design fee (fixed price); The program
of requirements; The urban development
vision of the municipality; A distance agreement (in
the agreement with the contractor).
The design process

The various design team members were all selected through a European tender. During
the tender, it was not yet clear to the contractor what the design would look like, so the ambitious
design was only chosen after the contract had been awarded.
During the production of the structure design, it turned out that the proposed design
Graduation research
solution would create great tensions with the available budget. The
Niels Nielen
page 47 of 71
architect had to make the necessary design efforts to ensure that his design could be realized within budget. These
unforeseen efforts have resulted in a backlog of the initial design planning.
The ambition level of the design is still high and the design team members, especially the contractor, have their
doubts about the feasibility. Because many design solutions are postponed, there is no clear picture of the final
costs. The contractor tries to encourage the design team to make decisions so that the final price can be
determined and preparations for implementation can start.
Optimization Principles During the design

phase, the program of requirements was slightly modified on a few points. Because adjustments were
necessary from the design, but also because the user could not fully identify with the original program. The program
of requirements is not a subject of discussion during the design process. The tension is centered around the
architecture and construction costs.
Finally
Characteristic of the design process is the constant tension between the ambition level of the design and the
available budget:
The architect does his utmost to achieve the highest possible architectural quality. As a result, many
decisions are postponed to a later moment. This puts the final pricing at stake, as well as the ambitious
implementation schedule.
The architect would have liked to see a more active attitude from the contractor.
While the contractor is annoyed by the architect's continuing to design.
The cutbacks announced by the city council weigh heavily on the design and the design team.
6.1.3 Case 3: Newly built Christian school community Three existing schools are housed
in a new building somewhere in the middle of the Netherlands. The school will provide accommodation for about 1000
students, a sports hall will also be realized next to the school and a bicycle cellar will be built under the school. The
design team, which is organized as a construction team, consists of: a contractor, an architect, the client (represented
by a steering committee) and a construction management agency.
The contract
In the construction team agreements, the following matters were laid down:
The budget;
The design fee (fixed price); The program of
requirements; The urban development vision of
the municipality; A distance agreement (in the agreement with
the contractor).
The design process The

various design team members were all selected through a European tender. During the tender, a sketch
design was presented to the contractor.
The design process is progressing well, the final design should be completed soon. However, there are still
some open ends. For example, the design is not yet complete and final on some points and the client does not
yet know what its final starting points are for certain parts.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 48 of 71
Optimization Principles The program of

requirements was adjusted on a number of points during the design.
Partly because insights from the design process prompted this, but also because the user could not fully identify with
the original program.
Because the users cannot agree with the vision expressed in the program of requirements, certain design solutions
are reversed or are at stake.
In the vision, the building should be as transparent as possible, but the users (teachers) have reservations about an
overly transparent school building.
Finally
Characteristic of the design process is the constant tension between the budget, the progress and the architectural
ambition of the design:
The architect does his utmost to achieve the highest possible architectural quality.
The contractor believes that continuing to design is disastrous for progress. One has to cut buttons.
The architect would have liked to see a more active attitude from the contractor.
While the contractor is annoyed by the architect's continuing to design.
6.1.4 Case 4: Newly built municipal office A new municipal office

was recently built in a medium-sized municipality in the east of the Netherlands. The building is
located next to the station in the center of the town. The land on which the municipal office was built was owned
by a local development company. After negotiations with the municipality, it was agreed that the development
company, as an integral contractor, would take care of the realization of the new municipal office.
The contract
In the framework agreement between the municipality and the contractor, the following matters were laid down:
The budget (fixed price);

A brief Schedule of Requirements;
The urban development vision of the municipality;
The intention to jointly realize a 'sober and efficient' building;

various design team members have all been selected through a European tender. During the start of the design
phase, the architect explicitly took the lead. During the technical elaboration of the design, the contractor took the
initiative more and contributed ideas that influenced the manufacturability of the design. The contractor also took the
lead during the execution.
During design, the developer was the one who made the final decision. He weighed up the input of the client, contractor
and architect against each other.
In retrospect, it can be said that he chose the desired middle ground.
All interviewed parties were positive about the end result.
Optimizing Principles During the design

process there was some discussion about how to interpret the program of requirements. By looking together for
the desired solution and by both adding a little 'water to the wine', these differences in interpretation have not caused
any conflicts. All respondents agreed that the developer could have gotten more out of this. By changing the program
of requirements here and there during the design process, more was possible than if that had not been the case.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 49 of 71
In
conclusion The project went very positively, all respondents were very satisfied with the
process and the outcome. Some notable things:
There was an extraordinary amount of confidence in the contractor, who did not damage
this confidence.
The contractor had reserved 5% of the budget for unforeseen costs, which were
entirely absorbed by the building (including a more functional parking garage, but also
some architectural matters, such as excellent masonry and a very attractive entrance
gate).
There was no competition for the contractor and a brief contract. However, one did not
have to fall back on the legal effect of the contract.
6.1.5 Case 5 & 6: Newly built cultural center A new cultural

center is being built in a medium-sized town in the Northern Netherlands. The project,
which is both process-wise and technically very complex, includes: a theatre, cinema, parking
garage, apartments, library and a catering area. The project is organized as a design-build.
Three different suppliers were invited to make a design. Ultimately, the population, by means of
a referendum, would have a major say in the choice for one of the three integrated offers.
The contract
The starting points of the client, for the tender, a number of hard requirements were laid down:
A maximum budget;
An extensive program of requirements;
The urban development vision of the municipality;
A completion date for the building;
After the tender, a contract was entered into based on the above requirements and the
contractor's offer.
The design process

For our research, we looked at the design processes at two of the providers. The first was
awarded the contract, the second was disqualified because the price of the offer was too high.
During the tender, the third party had such reservations about the feasibility of the project that it
withdrew.
During the tender, a so-called competition-oriented dialogue was used to give the suppliers the
opportunity to discuss the starting points for the design and the solutions themselves with the client
and the various users.
First supplier The

design process The
design team was put together on the basis of good experiences from the past.
The contractor took the initiative here, he was ultimately also the one who took the risk for the
integral assignment. Both the architect and contractor were very pleased with the design
process. The contractor allowed the architect sufficient space to arrive at the best possible design.
The role of the contractor was initially limited to that of coordinator of the design process, only
when the design became more and more concrete did the contractor begin to actively provide input.
This
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 50 of 71
input related to making cost calculations and suggesting various design optimisations, aimed at both process
and quality.
Both the contractor and the architect indicated that there was considerable pressure on the design team during the
tender. It was only possible to a very limited extent to see together with the OG which starting points were really
essential for the quality of the design. The time pressure was also substantial, so making extra optimization steps was
not an option.
After the tender, it became clear that this provider was the only one that met all the conditions. The client, and
the citizens, therefore had no choice. After the award of the work, there were still quite a few loose ends in the design.
The municipality also needed to adjust the design on a few points. The room to optimize this was very limited. The
contractor had to deal with a very tight contract price, which meant that the willingness to change was not too great. The
client adhered firmly to the original package of requirements.
Optimization Principles Both the program

of requirements and the budget were slightly adjusted during the competitive dialogue. However, the options for this were
very limited. The various parties do agree that more interaction between the design and the original principles could have
led to a better design.
Especially because it appears to be virtually impossible, within the budget, the available time and spatial frameworks, to
also meet all other requirements, without making concessions to quality here and there. Now that the contract has been
signed, there seems to be even less flexibility in the starting points.
second provider
second design team was also put together on the basis of good experiences from the past. Here, however, it was the
architect who took the initiative. During the competitive dialogue, the architect first put aside the program of requirements
in order to investigate together with the users what the underlying question was. This way of working has been well
received by users. Only then did the actual design begin.
However, the budget was not sufficient to incorporate all the client's requirements into the design and the time to go
through all kinds of optimization steps was too short. The contractor did not dare to tender with a price that would be at
odds with the actual costs. To avoid getting involved in all kinds of conflicts during the execution, it was decided to tender
with a price that was above the maximum budget. The consequence of this was that the second bidder was disqualified.
Optimizing Principles By entering the

design process together with the users, there was a lot of support for the design. Together with the hard starting
points, this ultimately contributed to the fact that the price has become too high.
Finally
Both design processes were characterized by a certain amount of pressure:
A high time pressure;

A tight budget, according to two of the three providers even too tight;
Very many and high demands;
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 51 of 71
Difficulty coordinating the design with the client and the users; During the execution of the assignment a lot of
bureaucracy, in the form of test reports, etc
6.2 Assumptions in practice
We saw in section 6.1 that our assumptions do not hold true for all projects. In this section, we clearly compare the results
of the case studies.
How often did we see our assumptions match the practical examples discussed and how often did they not?
During the interviews, we also presented the assumption to the respondents. Did they endorse the assumptions
and why or why not? We also put the answers to these questions clearly next to each other.
All assumptions have the form if A then B. The numbers in the column 'examples case studies' indicate how many times
the statement was true and how many times the statement was not true, in the examples discussed. In the right-hand
column, the figures indicate how many respondents agree and how many respondents disagree with the statement
goods.
i. If the design team works under competitive pressure, the architect and contractor will better match their
expertise.
Examples Respondents
case studies
contractor architect OG Total
AÿB 2 4 3 3 10
AÿB 0 3 3 2 8
II. If the client's starting points are contractually covered, the architect and contractor will better coordinate
their expertise.
Examples Respondents
case studies
AÿB 5 4 2 4 10
AÿB 2 3 4 2 9
III. If the principles of the OG have a certain degree of flexibility, the design effectiveness will increase.
Examples of Respondents
case studies
AÿB 7 6 4 3 15
AÿB 4 5 2 3 4
IV. If the principles of the OG have a certain degree of flexibility, the opportunities for the design team
members to behave opportunistically increase.
Examples of Respondents
case studies
Graduation research AÿB na 4 4 6 14
Niels Nielen AÿB na 3 2 0 5
page 52 of 71
6.3 In conclusion
We did not see our assumptions reflected in all the case studies studied. As a result of the
interviews held, a picture emerges that integration between contractor and architect is more
related to how both stand in relation to each other in the design process. Then with the question
of whether or not there is competition or a contract. If the influence of the contractor and architect
corresponds to the desired quality/price ratio, then there appears to be a successful integration
between design and execution.
We saw a certain degree of flexibility in the starting points in all design processes.
And in most cases, this flexibility was also used to achieve a better end result. It was striking that if
the flexibility was imposed by the project environment, both the client and the design team usually
regarded this flexibility as undesirable. The possibility of undesirable behavior could not be measured
in the case studies. The contractors and architects among the respondents had their doubts about
the fourth statement. They expressed the expectation that no flexibility would sooner lead to
undesirable behaviour. Only the clients unanimously agreed that the flexibility in the basic principles
would increase the possibility of undesirable behaviour.
In addition to the researched examples from the design process, we have obtained a very rich
picture of these processes and what the role of various respondents was during the design process.
In Chapter 7 we will review the assumptions made in Chapter 4 against the case studies and see
where an adjustment is in order.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 53 of 71
7 Reviewing assumptions
We will review the assumptions made in chapter four against the case studies. Do we see the
assumptions reflected in practice, or is a reformulation in order?
7.1 Assumption 1
If the design team works under competitive pressure, the architect and contractor will
better match their expertise.
Expertise coordination
In practice, we saw varying degrees of coordination35. We can describe them from low to
high as follows:
1. The integration of design and execution will be minimal if the contractor or the architect
has no input in the realization of a design solution, or if either has such power that it
need not concern itself with the other in the development of a design solution. If during
the design process the balance tips towards quality optimizations at the expense of
process optimizations or vice versa, then the integration of design and implementation
is minimal. You can even speak of sub-optimizations.
2. The contractor and architect are equal in the design team. Neither can exercise power
over the other, but both depend on each other for the progress of the design process.
After all, if the architect does not design, the contractor cannot say anything about the
costs and the implementation.
And if the contractor does not provide a definite answer about the construction costs of
the proposed design solutions, the sub-phases cannot be completed and the architect
cannot continue. Yet the integration of design and execution is not optimal, the design
solutions are based on a compromise between quality and process optimisations.
3. The integration of design and implementation is maximized when design solutions are
created jointly. If the architect and the contractor do not just coordinate, but really
collaborate on a design solution with an optimal quality/price for the client, both
optimization directions can be pursued simultaneously. There is maximum integration
of design and execution.
We summarize the above in the following statement:
A. As the interdependence between the contractor and architect increases, the integration of
design and execution will increase.
Competitive
pressure Based on the previous observations, we can say that it is not so much the relationship
between the client and the design team that influences the integration of design and execution.
But much more the relationship between the contractor and the architect.
In both design-build design processes for the cultural center we examined, we saw that the design
teams had a common goal for the tender, namely to win the tender. The means of winning the
tender was to make a design that was as favorable as possible for the client
From here on, the degree of coordination between the expertise of the contractor and the architect is no longer discussed,
Niels Nielen but about the integration of design and execution.
page 54 of 71
value for money. Not only were the objectives of the client and the design team the same during
the tender. The objectives of the contractor and architect were also the same, as both benefited
from winning the tender. During design, the contractor and architect depended on each other to
achieve the objective. The architect uses all his creativity to make a beautiful and functional
design and the contractor monitors the costs and progress.
Because competition does not directly ensure a successful integration of design and execution,
but does contribute to the dependence between the contractor and the architect, we redefine our
first proposition:
B. If the design team works under competitive pressure, the interdependence between
the contractor and the architect will increase.
This assumption implies that the dependence between the two will decrease once the competitive
pressure has disappeared. We also saw this in practice.
Once the assignment has been received, the contractor is no longer dependent on the input of
the architect. Within the design space that is left to him, he can emphasize process optimization
without having to worry too much about the architect. The influence of this changed position of
power is summarized in the following statement:
C. If there is a bundling of tasks and responsibilities in one contract, the mutual dependence
between the contractor and the architect will decrease.
7.2 Assumption 2
If the starting points of the client are contractually covered, the architect and contractor
will better coordinate their expertise.
If the starting points of the client, as is the case with a construction team, are laid down in the
contract, then the building team members have indicated that a design based on these starting
points can be realized. However, because in a construction team there is a spread of tasks and
responsibilities in the design process, none of the construction team members will take responsibility
for the input of others. As a result, many bilateral construction team agreements provide less legal
certainty than an integral contract that bundles the tasks and responsibilities with one market party.
Due to the contractual distribution of tasks and responsibilities, power within the construction
team is also distributed among the various design team members. However, all members depend
on each other's input for progress, because without input from the architect nothing is designed and
without input from the contractor there is no certainty about the feasibility of the proposed solutions.
The distribution of tasks and responsibilities within a construction team and the agreements that are
made about how the work is divided and coordinated ensure that there is coordination in the
collaboration between the architect and contractor. In practice, this means that compromises are
constantly sought during design.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 55 of 71
We therefore want to replace the second assumption with the following:
D. If there is a spread of tasks and responsibilities over different contracts, the mutual
dependence between the contractor and the architect will increase.
7.3 Assumption 3
If the principles of the OG have a certain degree of flexibility, the design effectiveness
will increase.
There was a certain degree of flexibility in all the projects examined. And this flexibility has
also been used to achieve a better design. By giving and taking a little during the design, as
the client, a design solution has been created that offers a better quality/price than if this option
had not been had.
However, this flexibility has not only had a positive effect. Flexibility can also lead to disruptions. In
one of the cases studied, we saw that the original starting points were completely abandoned,
making it difficult to control the design process in terms of time and money. In the end, a design
was created in which the parties involved gritted their teeth.
However, the way in which this design came about is not a paragon of efficiency.
In another project, we saw cutbacks weigh heavily on the design process.

By reducing the budget during design, the design solution no longer met the preconditions. This
flexibility also has a negative impact on the quality/price of the design.
We would therefore like to redefine the third proposition as follows:
E. If it is possible to optimize the principles of the OG during the design process, the quality/
price of the design will increase.
7.4 Assumption 4
If the principles of the OG have a certain degree of flexibility, the opportunities for the
design team members to behave opportunistically increase.
The flexibility in the starting points in the projects studied did not lead to demonstrable
opportunistic behaviour. It is therefore difficult to prove whether the degree of flexibility has
influenced the possibility of opportunism.
In the various projects studied, we did see, regardless of the underlying construction organization,
a certain tension between the budget and the starting points for the design. If the client asks himself
too much, before or during the design, then the design team members try to pursue their own
interests in a different way.
At the municipal office, the contractor had reserved a margin of 5% for unforeseen matters at the
start of the design. This was almost entirely devoted to design solutions that benefited the quality of
the design. In the public school community, a design variant was already chosen in the early stages
Construction team vs. Design Build of the design, which was only very difficult to fit within the available budget.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 56 of 71
would be realizable. This put pressure on both the margins of the design team members and the
available design space for the further design process.
At the cultural centre, too, we saw a certain tension at the start of the design between what
people wanted and what the budget was available for. This tension was such that two of the
three providers were unable to make a suitable offer for the available budget. Now that they are
in a post-contractual situation, the contractor is forced to charge for additional work with every
change of plan in order to keep the process somewhat manageable and not see the work descend
even further into a downward spiral. Relationships are tense. Figure 13 shows the influence of the
starting points on the design space and margins of the design team members schematically.
X=0=PvE&project environment
Quality Y=0=Budget
design
Insufficient quality
Too expensive
Design space/margins
Lower limit of what is possible
Process
costs
Figure 13, Influence of the OG's principles on the available design space and margins of the design team members
The aim of the design process is to find an optimal solution for the client's housing problem.
If the design team is not given enough space for this, it will have a negative effect on the end result.
However, the design team must know what the expectations are and within what frameworks a
design must be created.
The foregoing can be summarized in the following two assumptions:
F. If there is a balance between the budget and the other starting points for the design,
the quality/ price of the design will increase.
G. If there is a balance between the budget and the other starting points for the
design, the chance of conflicts will decrease.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 57 of 71
7.5 Causal model modified

Based on the outcome of the case studies and the reformulation of some of our assumptions, we
have adjusted the causal relationship diagram from section 4.1 (Figure 14). In this section, we will
explain the custom chart.
We saw in sections 7.1 and 7.2 that the construction organization influences the extent
to which the architect and contractor are interdependent in the design organisation. If
this dependency increases, the integration of design and implementation will also increase.
Assumption C&D
Distribution of tasks
Contractual
and responsibilities - Legal
certainties
+ cover
+ Assumption A
Mutual
dependence
- + Integration design -
execution
between contractor and architect
+ +
Competition
sub-optimizations
design
-
Assumption B
+
Quality/price
design
+ Solution-
assets
+
Assumption F
+
Tension budget and
others starting points
- Design space +
Assumption
E
- + Architectural Integration design -

ambition principles
Flexibility
Margins - Competition pressure
principles OG
Chance of conflict
Assumption G
Figure 14, causal relationship diagram design process
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 58 of 71
The contractual hedge provides a degree of legal certainty. In the event of a major conflict,
either contracting party can fall back on the legal effect of the contract. The spread of
tasks and responsibilities, as we know them in a construction team, makes it more difficult
to allocate a risk to one party than when there is a bundling of tasks and responsibilities in
a contract.
If the starting points of the client have a certain degree of flexibility, then the starting
points can be optimized during the design process. This integration of the program and
the design offers the design team more possibilities to arrive at an optimal solution.
The starting points of the client should entail a certain degree of tension. There must be a
balance between the expected quality and the available budget (Figure 13). If the
qualitative expectations are too high in relation to the available budget, the margins of the
design team members are under pressure. After all, if there is no room between the cost
price and the budget, the design team members cannot earn anything. In that case, the
chance of conflicts increases.
The design space also comes under pressure if the expectations with regard to
quality are too high in relation to the available budget.
If the design team has insufficient space to look for an optimal design solution and cannot
vary with quality and price, the result of the design process will come under pressure.
Nevertheless, the client must set goals with his starting points. If he has too high a budget
available for the desired quality, he runs the risk of paying too much for the final design
solution.
The design team's ability to generate design solutions with an optimal quality/price ratio
is highly dependent on three variables. The design space offered by the principles of the
OG and the project environment; The degree of integration between design and
implementation; And the degree of integration between program and design.
7.6 In conclusion
Based on the case studies, we reformulated one assumption and replaced three with six others.
We saw that not so much the contract or the competition are the direct drivers of a successful
collaboration between the architect and contractor, but more the relationship between the two in the
design process. We also saw that a realistic balance between the budget and the other starting
points for the design is of great importance for a positive outcome of the design process.
In the next chapter we will articulate the differences between the build team and design-build and
the influence of these differences in our conclusions. We will also use our findings to make a number
of recommendations.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 59 of 71
8 Conclusions and recommendations

In this final chapter, we will discuss the results of the research
answer the main research question (Section 8.1). We conclude our study with a number of recommendations (Section
8.2).
8.1 Conclusions
In this section we will answer the main research question:
What differences between a construction team and a design-build construction organization affect the
end result of the design process?
In our research, we zoomed in on two differences between the construction team and a design-build organization.
(1) The relationship between the contractor and architect in the design team and the influence of this collaboration
on the integration of design and execution. (2) The possibilities and impossibilities of still adjusting the starting points
for the design during the design and the influence of this on the end result of the design process. In addition to these
differences, we found in the case studies that regardless of the chosen construction organization, it is essential to
keep expectations realistic. The starting points for the design must clearly indicate the search direction in which to search
for the optimal solution.
However, a client should not ask too much, too high expectations lead to disappointments and the chance of conflicts
in the design team increases.
8.1.1 The design process Integration

of design and execution A design team,
comprising both a contractor and an architect, potentially has the knowledge and expertise to deliver a better design
than if the contractor is not part of the design team. Alternatives are continuously generated and weighed against
each other during the design process. When generating and weighing up these alternatives, an architect is primarily
looking for the highest possible quality. While a contractor, from his background as a builder, looks much more
strongly for solutions with which he can keep costs under control.
The extent to which both search directions are combined in the realization of a design solution is equivalent to the
integration of design and implementation.
The extent to which architect and contractor successfully collaborate in the search for such a design solution strongly
depends on the extent to which they depend on each other. We saw in chapter 7 that the construction organization
influences this dependence.
Optimizing the client's starting points In the complex non-residential construction

projects, which are the subject of research, we see that the design process not only benefits from a successful
integration of design and implementation. At the start of the design, clients often do not know exactly which starting points
the design must meet. During the design process, we see that through constant interaction with the proposed design
solutions, the quality of both the starting points and the design continues to improve. This integration, the integration of
program and design, is therefore at least as useful as the integration of design and execution.
In practice, this comes down to a little give and take. When a solution results in higher quality, but also entails
higher costs, the requirements on another component may have to be reduced a bit in order to stay within budget. Or
they come up with a cheaper solution
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 60 of 71
combine multiple functions in the design. The money saved in this way can be used at other
points in the design. The possibilities for optimizing the starting points depend on the chosen
construction organisation.
Starting points in balance

To enable the design team to come up with a design solution with a favorable quality/price ratio,
the team must have sufficient design space at its disposal. If the requirements are too high for
the available budget, then the design team has no room to generate alternatives and weigh them
against each other, there must be room to vary with quality and price.
However, this space must be framed. After all, the team must know what the design must
meet and what the available budget is to look in the desired direction for a design solution
that is favorable to the client.
When drawing up the starting points36 for the design, a balance must be found here. A
complicating factor in practice is that when the starting points are not in balance, this only
manifests itself during the design. The ability to find this balance even before designing
commences depends to a large extent on the knowledge and experience of the person who
draws up the starting points.
If the client has confidence in the design team and gives the team the space to design, then
the designers also have the space to pursue their own interests. After all, all members of the design
team intend to use their input to ensure that their own business objectives are also achieved. By
giving the members of the design team this space as a client, they will be less inclined to pursue
their objectives in a different way. This reduces the chance of conflict.
8.1.2 Design-build
Integration of design and execution
In a design-build organization we see a major shift in the relationship between the contractor and
the architect during the design process. During the design for the tender, there is intensive
cooperation between the contractor and the architect. They form the pivot of the design team,
which works together on a design with the aim of winning the tender. We see in practice that this
common goal results in intensive cooperation. This involves working in one common space and
the design team jointly has limited resources, such as time, money and capacity, at its disposal.
Within the situation outlined here, the contractor and the architect depend on each other
for the realization of the common objective. This dependency ensures that the integration
of design and implementation is maximized.
It should also be noted that designing, also in a design-build organization, is primarily
done by the architect. The contractor's input consists of proposals to optimize the proposed
design solutions.
The relationship changes radically, however, once the tender has been won and the contract
signed. The contractor is no longer dependent on the architect for the realization of his new
objective. Now that the assignment has been received, he can focus on minimizing costs in the
further development of the design. After all, he has agreed a fixed price with the client and every
euro he saves goes directly back into his own pocket. Of course he has no carte blanche. In the
36
Graduation research The balance between the budget and other starting points must be maintained throughout the entire design process.
After all, design decisions taken in the first phase of the design process influence the design space further down the process.
Niels Nielen
page 61 of 71
contract with the client, the minimum requirements that the elaboration of the design must meet
are laid down.
To make maximum use of the competitive incentive between the various suppliers and to limit
the risk that minimizing costs is at the expense of quality when developing the design. Can a
client set high requirements for the level of detail of the offer? The downside of this choice is that the
various providers have to incur very high costs for their offer, with the risk that the contract will pass
them by. As an alternative to the above, we also see design-build organizations (Appendix 2) in
practice, where one contract is not immediately entered into for both design and implementation. By
making a cut here, the contractor's cost expertise can be used during design, without the OG and
ON already being in a post-contractual negotiating position for execution.
Optimizing the client's assumptions When designing in a design-

build organization, there are a number of important process constraints to optimize the
client's assumptions during design. In addition to the fact that extra design efforts always entail
extra design costs. Based on competition law, the principles can only be changed to a limited
extent during the tender.
After the tender, the client and contractor are in a post-contractual negotiating position.
The chance that changes will result in higher costs for the client than would have been conceivable
before the tender was awarded has thus increased substantially. In a design-build organization there
are therefore quite a few limitations to optimize the starting points during the design process. The
alternative, in which a split is made between the contract for the design and the execution, would
also offer a solution to circumvent these restrictions.
The case studies showed that the influence of the project environment on the design process is
significant. Objections from municipal councils, the wealth that objects to proposed plans and
cutbacks within municipalities are a few practical examples of this. The process limitations of a
design-build organization to optimize the client's starting points during design also apply to changes
in the design starting points that the client has not had a hand in.
Starting points in balance A

balance between the budget and the other starting points for the design, irrespective of the form of
construction organization, is important to arrive at a good design. Because the possibilities in a
design-build organization to optimize the starting points during design are limited, we see that this
balance is already of substantial importance at the start of the design.
8.1.3 Construction team

In a construction team there is a different relationship between the contractor and architect than
in a design-build organisation. In a construction team, both are dependent on each other for the
realization of the design. However, due to the lack of a client - contractor relationship between the
two, one cannot dominate the other. The tasks and responsibilities during design are divided
Construction team vs. Design Build among the various construction team members by means of the construction team agreement.
Here we see the pivotal function of Kleissen and Partners returning, as guardian and coordinator of
Graduation research these tasks and responsibilities.
Niels Nielen
page 62 of 71
The contractor and architect both fulfill their duties in the design process. However, there is
hardly any cooperation in the performance of their tasks. The architect devises design solutions,
with which he strives for the highest possible quality.
The contractor then indicates the consequences of these solutions for the costs and lead time of the
construction process. If the proposed solution does not fit within the budget or if the solution does
not meet the requirements, the contractor can propose alternatives. We see that the integration
between design and execution is limited to a compromise between the input of the architect and the
contractor. This integration is less extensive than when designing for a competitive tender, but
greater than when the contractor designs after the conclusion of the design-build contract.
When designing commences, there is still no relationship between the contractor and the
architect. The contractor is only added to the design team during the VO phase. When establishing
the initial contours of the design, there is therefore no question of integration of design and
implementation. In practice, however, this situation hardly differs from that in a design-build
organization. Even in a design-build organization, the contractor hardly has any input in determining
the initial contours.
We saw in the case studies that the influence of the contractor and architect changes during the
design process. In the beginning we see that an architect has a lot of influence, the emphasis is still
mainly on the pursuit of the highest possible quality. As the design is further elaborated, the influence
of the contractor increases. The client wants to stay within budget and time schedule and the
contractor is the right advisor for this.
What stood out in the construction team projects studied was the controllability of the
architect: an architect is very difficult to control. In his search for optimum quality, control of the
design process is often lost sight of. The contractors involved noted this, but were not in a position
to call the architect to order. KenP also allows the architect to a certain extent to pursue the highest
quality, albeit at the expense of controlling the design process.
Optimizing the client's assumptions When designing in a construction

team, there are only a few process constraints to optimize the client's assumptions during
design. If optimizations lead to additional design efforts, the design costs will increase. And extra
efforts usually also result in a longer lead time for the design process.
If optimizations cause control of the process to decrease, then contractors tend to label them as
undesirable. In a construction team, however, it is not up to the contractor, but to Kleissen and
Partners to weigh up the pros and cons.
Starting points in balance A

balance between the budget and the other starting points, regardless of the form
of construction organization, is important in arriving at a good design. Because there are more
possibilities in a construction team to optimize the starting points during the design process, we
see that this balance can also be sought during the design process.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 63 of 71
8.2 Recommendations
Based on the conclusions of the study, this section makes a number of recommendations to
KenP's clients and to Kleissen and Partners themselves. A number of recommendations will
also be made for further research.
8.2.1 Recommendations for clients Kleissen and Partners Kleissen wants to

use the findings from the research to advise its clients on the organizational form to be chosen
for the realization of a complex non-residential project. Based on our findings, we will list the
main reasons for choosing a construction team and the main reasons for choosing a design-
build organization.
Pro-build team
1. We saw that the starting points for the design often change during the design process.
Progressive insight from the client, the unfeasibility of the requirements in relation to the
available budget or influences from the project environment are the main reasons for
these changes. In a construction team, a client can implement changes more easily than
in a design-build organization, where competition legislation and the risks associated
with post-contractual negotiations form a barrier.
2. During the design process in a construction team, the activities of the contractor and
architect are divided and coordinated by Kleissen and Partners.
This creates design solutions that are characterized by a compromise between
the input of the contractor and the architect. The integration of design and execution
here is less than when the design team works under competitive pressure, but greater
than when the design team works on the basis of a single integrated contract.
Pro design build
1. When working in a design-build organization, you as a client have a

certainty about the costs and lead time of the construction process at an early stage.
After all, managing a manageable construction process is in good hands with a
contractor. The condition is that the starting points are stable and explicit before the
start of the design.
2. If the contractor and architect are part of the design team during the tender, they are
dependent on each other. Collaboration within the design team benefits from this,
resulting in maximum integration of design and implementation. This integration has a
positive effect on the quality/price of the final design. However, once the order has been
received, the contractor can focus on minimizing costs in the further development of the
design, without having to take too much account of the architect. After all, he has agreed
a fixed price with the client and every euro he saves goes directly back into his own
pocket.
8.2.2 Recommendations for Kleissen and Partners

Kleissen's construction team plus has a number of modifications compared to the regular
construction team, in order to better guarantee control of the construction process. The building
team design processes, which we examined in our case studies, were all organized according
to the building team plus principle. In this section we will explain the experiences with these
Graduation research
modifications. At the researched construction team
Niels Nielen
page 64 of 71
design processes, we saw that not only the design solutions, but also the behavior of the architect,
was constantly at odds with the control of the process.
We would like to conclude with this observation as a point of discussion.
Construction team plus
Clearly setting the framework for the construction team seems to work well, both the
task-setting budget and the schedule of requirements are regarded as leading by the
various construction team members. It is no surprise that architects find it more difficult
to stay within the set frameworks with their design solutions than the other design team
members.
The early involvement of the various construction team members, including the
contractor, is experienced as positive by the various respondents. Although the input
of the contractor in the researched construction team projects seems to be limited.
However, the contractual assignment of responsibilities to the individual construction

team members does not provide any real incentive. After all, the various construction
team members cannot be held responsible for the input of someone else. Designing is
really a joint effort, where everyone contributes to the big picture.
Dividing, coordinating and monitoring the work within a construction team are
essential for the degree to which consensus is reached in the design process. The
respondents from the case studies recognized this importance as well as the role that
Kleissen and partners have fulfilled in this regard.
Discussion
point In all three construction team projects we examined, we saw that the design process was
constantly looking for a compromise between quality optimizations and process optimizations.
Remarkable here was the (im)controllability of the architect.
His behavior and the proposed design solutions put pressure on control of the design
process more than once. Some concrete examples:
After completing a sub-phase, revisiting earlier decisions, which jeopardizes

progress and also makes construction costs a subject of discussion again;
Proposing design solutions that are financially unfeasible, with the consequence
that the architect has to go back to the drawing board and does not complete his work
within the agreed period;
8.2.3 Recommendations for further research Design

organization as a network organization In
chapter 4 we established a link between the degree to which design and implementation are
integrated and the relationship of the design team with the client. During the case studies, however,
the insight grew that it is not this relationship, but rather the relationship between the contractor
and the architect that influences the integration of design and execution. If we approach the design
organization as a network organization (Prins, Heintz, & Vercouteren, 2006), as described by
Dumay (2009), the integration of design and execution as observed in the various construction
organizations seems to be better explained.

An investigation into the collaboration in a design organization, which is not limited to the
role of the contractor and the architect. Could lead to greater insight into the design process of
Graduation research
complex utility buildings.
Niels Nielen
page 65 of 71
Dynamic project environment In

complex non-residential construction, the construction organization often has to deal
with a dynamic project environment. The influence of the project environment often weighs heavily
on the construction organisation. It would be interesting to take a closer look at the influence of
the project environment on the functioning of the construction organization.
Risk allocation
Another point that kept coming up during the research was the risk allocation within the
construction organization. In a design-build organization this seems clear, in a construction team
less so. Nevertheless, in the case studies of both construction organizations we saw a discussion
about who now bears which risk. An investigation into the risks in complex non-residential
construction and the influence of the construction organization on the allocation of these risks
would be very interesting.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 66 of 71
Literature register
BNA; ONRI. (2009). Standard task description: DNR-STB 2009. The Hague/ Amsterdam: BNA/
ONRI.
Bruggeman, E., Chao-Duivis, M., & Koning, A. (2008). A practical guide to Dutch Building Contracts.
The Hague: IBR.
Cobouw. (2009, Nov 26). "We stick with it to the last brick." Cobouw .
Dijkstra, T. (2001). Architectural quality. Rotterdam: Publisher 010.
Doree, A. (2001). Floating between competition and co-development: the problem of cooperation in
construction. Enschede: University of Twente.
Doree, A. (1996). Municipal tendering: a study of the cooperation between municipal services and
contractors in civil engineering.
Hengelo: University of Twente.
Duvivier, T. (2007). Value of the design in relation to value of the process. Delft: Delft University of
Technology.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency Theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14, No 1 , 57-74.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The academy of management
review, vol. 14, no. 4 , 532-550.
Encyclo. (2009). notion of "interorganization". Retrieved on December 11, 2009, from Encyclo: http://
www.encyclo.nl/concept/Interorganisatie
fabricate it. (2010). fabricate it. Retrieved on February 17, 2010, from blogspot: http://
fabricateit.blogspot.com/
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry , 219-245.
how stuff works. (2010). how to draw buildings. Retrieved on February 17, 2010, from how stuff
works: http://home.howstuffworks.com/how-to-draw-buildings.htm/printable
Jergeas, G.d. (2001). Benfits of constructability on construction projects. JOURNAL OF

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT , 281 - 290.
Kleissen. (2009). About Kleis. Retrieved on April 27, 2009, from Kleissen & partners: http://
www.kleissen.nl/overkleissen.asp
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Paape, L. (2008). 'In-Control' explanations: hot air or a phenomenon to be cherished? Utrecht:

Nyenrode University.
Pries, F. (2008, Jun). Where to BWT; choose or share? University of applied sciences of Utrecht.
PSIBuilding. (2005). Outsourcing Strategy Considerations. Amersfoort: PSIBouw.
Construction board. (2009). Tendering guideline (consultation document). Gouda: Construction

Board.
Schonau, W. (2007). Ambition gives the client power. BOSS Magazine , 20-25.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 67 of 71
Sijpersma, R., & Buur, A. (2005). building organizations in motion. Amsterdam: EIB.
Swanborn, P. (2008). Case studies: What, when and how? Amsterdam: Boom.
Twente Engineering Company. (2009). The design cycle. Retrieved on October 13, 2009, Twente:
by University
http://www.utwente.nl/projecten/tto/Info/Wat%20is%20technische%20ontwerpen/ontwe rpketen.doc/
van der Krogt, W., & Vroom, C. (1991). Organization is movement. Utrecht: Publisher Lemma BV
Verschuren, P., & Doorewaard, H. (2005). Designing a survey. Utrecht: LEMMA.
Wamelink, W. (2009). introduction to construction management. Delft: VSSD.
Wikipedia. (2010). Variable. Retrieved on February 9, 2010, from http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabele
Williamson, O. (1973). Markets and Hierarchies: Some Elementary Considerations. The American
Economic Review (pp. 316-325). American Economic Association.
Williamson, O. (1981). The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach.

The American Journal of Sociology , 548-577.
Williamson, O. (1979). Transaction cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal
of Law and Economics 233-261. ,
Winch, G. (2001). Governing the project process: a conceptual framework. Construction Management
and Economics , 799-808.
Yin, R. (2008). Case Study Research. London: SAGE Publications Inc.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 68 of 71
Definition
Contract sum
The amount the OG pays the contractor to build the design is the contract price. The
construction costs are the costs that the contractor incurs to realize the building. The greater the
difference between the two, the greater the profit the contractor can make
Dependency
Dependence is the opposite of power. A person is dependent on another when he perceives the
activities of the other as important and it is difficult to find a substitute for those activities. When there
is interdependence, the relationships between the units are used to serve the organizational interest
(Dumay, 2009).
Architectural ambition
The architectural ambition can be described as the difference between the desire to
achieve a unique end result and the limitations (usually in terms of time and money) experienced
(Schönau, 2007).
Reward system The way in

which the members of the design team are rewarded for their efforts in the design process, or the
result of the design process.
Construction costs
see contract price
Construction team (BT)

A construction team is an integrated construction process organization in which
representatives of the construction process functions 'take initiative', 'design' and 'execute' work
together during the design process (Sijpersma & Buur, 2005).
Budget
The budget is understood to mean the financial resources that the client makes available for the design
and realization of its construction project.
Complex non-residential
construction Projects in non-residential construction that are complex in terms of processes,
because multiple users are involved in the construction process, there is fragmented financing, a public
interest and/or they are prestige projects. Process complexity is often one of the factors that make the
project technically complex.
Examples are town halls, (community) schools and cultural buildings.
Contractual coverage The

extent to which the client's principles are linked to the remuneration of the designers through
the contract. The starting points of the client are the available budget, the SoR and the project
environment. A condition for contractual coverage is that the client's starting points are known when
entering into the contract and that they are measurable. The contractual coverage is related to how
whether or not conforming to the principles affects the remuneration of the designers.
Design Build (DB)

Construction team vs. Design Build Design-build is a more integrated construction process organization in which one contractor takes
on both the design and execution of the construction process tasks (Sijpersma & Buur, 2005).
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 69 of 71
Equivalent
Equivalent means that the contractor and architect do not dominate each other, neither has a
dominant position of power over the other.

The extent to which quality optimizations and process optimizations are combined in the design
solution. In practice, this boils down to the extent to which the contractor and architect have worked
together to arrive at a design solution.
Quality
Subjective assessment in which the design of a building is judged on how beautiful someone
thinks it is and the degree to which it is tailored to its intended use.
Quality/ price of the design The

relationship perceived by the client between the quality of the design and the price he has to
pay for its realization.
Manufacturability
The extent to which use is made of knowledge and experience about the planning, technical
elaboration, procurement and realization of an architectural design in order to achieve the
set project goals.
Design effectiveness
See quality/price design
Design space The

design space for the design team is determined by a collection of design variables
within which a design solution must be devised. In our research, the design space is
determined by the following boundaries: the client's budget; the program of requirements; the
project environment.
Solution capacity The

extent to which the design team is able to arrive at the best possible design solution for the
client. In our research, we take into account three variables that influence the design team's
ability to solve problems. The degree of integration of design and implementation, the degree of
integration of program and design, and the design space that the client grants the design team.
Variables that we have not investigated, but that form the basis of the design team's ability to
solve problems, are the experiences and references they use to arrive at a solution.
Opportunistic behavior
Behavior of designers in which the pursuit of self-interest is at the expense of design effectiveness.
In practice, this comes down to asking too high prices for contract changes or proposing design
solutions that are sub-optimal for the client.
Optimizing
Optimizing means: 'bringing to the best possible level'. In our research we distinguish three
optimization directions, which can be integrated. The first two are strongly interrelated and can
be followed in any organizational form. The third is strongly related to the (im)possibility to
change the starting points of the client during the design process.
Construction team vs. Design Build (1) Optimizations that increase quality, at equal costs; (2) Optimizations whereby the process
costs decrease while the quality remains the same; (3) Optimizations where the client's principles
Graduation research are improved.
Niels Nielen
page 70 of 71
Process costs
The costs associated with the realization of the building and which the client must actually
pay. We distinguish between construction costs and design costs.
Program of requirements (PoR)

The program of requirements is an ordered collection of data that reflects the
accommodation needs of the client. The data serve as a guideline when designing a building and
as an evaluation framework for the quality of the design.
Starting points
The expectations that a client has when entering the design process are laid down in a number
of starting points, which the design team can use to get started.
In our research we distinguish the following starting points: the client's budget; the program of
requirements; the project environment.
Graduation research
Niels Nielen
page 71 of 71
Build Team vs Design Build:
An investigation into the differences between a construction team and a design-

build construction organization and the influence of these differences on the design
process in complex utility projects.
Appendix 2: Case study research
Version: 1.0 (Friday, June 4, 2010)

Status: Draft
On the instructions of:
SG (Sven) Alink
Prof. Dr Ir. Ing AG (André) Dorée Drs.

Ing J. (Hans) Boes
Prepared by: N.
(Niels) Nielen BSc
Date:
Hengelo, 4 June 2010
Case study research: Studying

construction team and design-build design processes in practice.
As the final piece of my studies in construction process management at the University of Twente, I am working on a
graduation project. In my research, I compare two different construction organization forms: the construction team
and a Design-Build organization. Based on conversations with practitioners and studying literature and theory, the
reward system seems to be the main difference between the two. Is the design team judged on the end result or on
the efforts made in the design process?
Incentive to integrate the expertise of the contractor and architect Both

forms of organization remove the traditional separation between design and implementation. However, the
incentives to actually integrate the expertise of the contractor and architect differ. In Design-build it is expected
that the pressure of competition will ensure that the contractor and architect both do their utmost for a design with
the desired quality/price for the client. In a construction team, the individual construction team members are
stimulated to work together through the underlying construction team agreements.
Utilizing the design space A design

team is given a certain amount of design space by the client to look for design solutions for the client's
accommodation problem.
This design space is limited by the project environment and various starting points of the client. The
underlying program of requirements and the available budget are the most important. We often see that
these principles are adjusted during the design process.
How the design team and its individual members use the allocated design space and adjustments to the
principles is strongly related to their remuneration. Do you strive for design solutions that optimally contribute
to the quality/price for the client?
Or do people strive for solutions that contribute to maximizing their own earnings at the expense of
the client?
Case studies I
want to test and enrich the above differences by studying different design processes in practice. We call this
method of research a case study. In various construction teams and Design-Build design processes, I want to find
out how design solutions have come about and what the consequences have been of these solutions for the client,
the architect and the contractor.
By considering the design examples from different angles, Contact:

the validity of the research results increases. For this reason Niels Nielen
I want
tel 06-22512349
various projects, together with the project manager, bring forward
n.nielen@student.utwente.nl
a number of examples from the completed design process. And then
consider this from the point of view of the client, architect and contractor.
Page 3 of 10
Choice model case studies
Not suitable as a case study
no
Complex utilitarian?
Is the client a
(semi)government?
Is it a prestige project?
Does the project serve a public
no interest? no
Yes Yes
If Construction Team: If Design-Build: Was

Was there a construction team agreement the assignment for both the design and
with both the contractor and the architect the execution integrated in a contract?
during design?
Were both not later than Is the contractor responsible for the design
preparation of preliminary design and implementation risks?
involved? Has the entire design been made by
the provider/contractor?
Yes Yes
Principles covered contractually by the client? Did the design team work under
competitive pressure?
Yes no Yes no
Suitable case study material
Case study research: Studying construction team and design-build design

processes in practice.
Page 4 of 10
Interview protocol
Background
This interview protocol is intended for the following case studies: reconstruction of parts from different construction
team and design-build design processes. We want to find out how different design solutions came about and
what the interests of the various design team members were.
Purpose of the interview

The purpose of the interviews is to test the previously formulated assumptions and to enrich our view of the design
processes in the construction team and design-build design processes. And to see how the design team has dealt
with changes in the project environment and principles of the client.
Result of the interview

Information about how the design team was remunerated (according to the contract or based on the result), the degree
of integration of the contractor's and architect's expertise and whether adjustments to the client's assumptions led to a
higher quality and or undesirable behaviour.
Working method per case

study For each project, a key person is approached, who can provide insight into the suitability of the project and the
chance of cooperation from the various design team members and the client. Together with this key figure, a number of
examples from the design process are selected which are interesting for the interviews.
Subsequently, the client, contractor and architect are approached to make an appointment for an interview. By
reconstructing the design process from multiple angles, a good picture is created of the how and why of the creation of
the design.
The persons to be interviewed will be sent a flyer in advance containing a short summary of the graduation research to
date and the objective of the case studies.
The interview, which consists of semi-open and open questions (see questionnaire), will take approximately one
hour:
a. Introduction interviewer – interviewee. Check whether the objective of the interview is clear. Start with the first
general part.
b. Dealing with the semi-open questions about the selected examples from the design process.
c. Open-ended questions about building team or design and construct preferences.
d. Check checklist ?
all questions answered?
Sending summary research?
e. Thanks for the cooperation.
Instructions for the interviewer: Continue

to give the respondent the feeling, through attitude, but also through supportive words if necessary, that
there are no wrong or wrong answers, but that his opinion is important Do not put respondents in the mouth: ask
neutral questions, show no approval or disapproval (but show interest!)
Never give the respondent the feeling that he has to account for what he thinks (not questioning, but questioning)
As an interviewer, make sure that you put yourself in a state of curiosity (to the input of the Other). In this
state you automatically show interest and patience, you tend to give positive feedback to what you hear
by, for example, nodding regularly (I understand what you are saying), and you automatically direct your
attention to the other person (looking at you). and what he/she says. Try to formulate further questions around
terms that the respondent has used.

Page 5 of 10
Behind every concept lies a world of thought that you as an interviewer can guess, but do not know
exactly. Keep in mind that it is common in normal conversation to translate what you hear into your own
words. After all, you exchange equally. Repeating exact words can feel strange to those starting out in an
interview. Assume that the interviewee does not feel strange about this.
Make sure the interview has a clear beginning and end.

If you need time to formulate another question, take it and say so explicitly.
Continue to follow your own intuition with these clues. Ask the questions that come to mind in a natural
way and accept that when responding you sometimes ask different questions than you intended. This
avoids tenseness, which often has more influence on the interview than clumsily formulated questions.

Page 6 of 10
General project information
project name:
Project description:
Client:
Project manager:
Contractor:
Contractor:
Architect:
Building organization form:
Launch project:
Delivery project:
Project size (m2 GFA):
Cost:
What was the available budget? (€/ m2)
What were the actual costs? (€/ m2)

Page 7 of 10
Which examples from the design process can serve as a case study regarding the integration of design and implementation expertise?
From the initial stage of the design (SO or

VO phase)
Why?
From the development phase of the design:

(DO and TO/ cutlery)
Why?
Which examples from the design process can serve as a case study regarding changes in the client's starting points during the design process?
From the initial stage of the design (SO or

VO phase)
Why?
From the development phase of the design:

(DO and TO/ cutlery)
Why?

Page 8 of 10
Case X: Interview, dd.
General
Name:
Organization:
Function:
What prompted the construction

project?
Cost1 :
What was the available budget? (€/ m2)

What were the actual costs? (€/ m2)
At what stage involved?
1
For the client: the total costs
1
For the architect: the design costs
1 Construction costs for the contractor
Questions about the role of the interviewee:
What was expected of the …… during design?
Why?
How have you fulfilled these expectations?
Why?
How did the collaboration in the design team go? Why?

Page 9 of 10
Can you say something about the other members of the design team?
Design example 1:
Competition or contract?
Consequences for the different design team members?
Consequences for the design/client?
Could there have been a better solution?
Talk about integration?
Design example 2:
Competition or contract?
Talk about integration?
Change of starting points example 1
Where did the change come from?

Was there an optimization?
Was there a contract change?
Change of starting points example 2
Where did the change come from?

Was there an optimization?
Was there a contract change?
General, finally:
What is the best construction organization form?

Why choose a construction team?
Why choose DB?

Page 10 of 10
Four statements:
If the design team works under competitive pressure, the architect and contractor will better match their expertise.
If the client's starting points are contractually covered, the architect and contractor will better coordinate their
expertise.
If the principles of the OG have a certain degree of flexibility, the design effectiveness will increase.
If the principles of the OG have a certain degree of flexibility, the possibilities for the design team members to behave
in an undesirable way increase.


Bouwteam Versus Designbuild

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bouwteam Versus Designbuild

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machine Translated by Google

Build Team vs Design Build:

Version: 3.1 (Friday, June 4, 2010)

On the instructions of:

Prof. Dr Ir. Ing AG (André) Dorée Drs.

Construction team vs. Design Build

It only remains for me to wish you a lot of reading pleasure.

Hengelo, June 2010

Construction team vs. Design Build

2 Designing at two different construction organizations 14

2.1 Construction organizational 14

3.1 Cyclical optimization process 3.1.1 31

4.1 Principles for graduation research 39

Construction team vs. Design Build

5.1 Case study research 43

6.1 Six design processes in a row 6.1.1 46

8 Conclusions and recommendations 60

Appendix 1: Minutes of the exploration of the design process (confidential)

Appendix 2: Case study research

Annex 3: Minutes and case study summaries (confidential)

Construction team vs. Design Build

Under these circumstances, the integration of design and execution is minimal.

Kleissen en Partners (KenP) is a construction management agency that can supervise

Figure 1, construction organization forms B&U (Pries, 2008)

Construction team vs. Design Build

1.3 Summary Action plan

1.3.1 Conceptual model

Problem definition and objective By

The above results in the following problem and objectives.

Construction team vs. Design Build

Transaction cost theory links people's behavior to a number of transaction-specific

By considering the designer as a professional, as defined by Mintzberg (1979), we can,

Figure 2, research model (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2005)

What differences between a construction team and a design-build construction organization

a. What is a construction organization?

a. What is the purpose of design b.

3. What is the added value of Kleissen and Partners bouwteamplus?

b. What is the influence of these differences on the end result of the

1.3.2 Research technical design

1.4 Reading guide

The content of the graduation research is divided into four parts:

A. The introductory part (Chapters 1 & 2)

A. The introductory part

2 Designing at two different construction

2.1 Building organization forms

Construction team vs. Design Build

2.1.1 Design Build

Contractor design team

Contractor design team

Figure 3, DB construction organization in the construction process

Construction team vs. Design Build

to win. The client can choose between the different offers.

Design-build is an integrated construction process organization in which one

Tasks and responsibilities The

Advantages and disadvantages

2.1.2 Construction team

Construction team contractor

Figure 4, construction team in the construction process

A construction team is an integrated construction process organization in which

Tasks and responsibilities Based on

Advantages and disadvantages

2.1.3 Kleissen's Plus KenP sees

Bouwteamplus agreement Kleissen