Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tabe20

A Comprehensive Appraisal of the Factors

Impacting Construction Project Delivery Method
Selection: A Systematic Analysis

QingPing Zhong, Hui Tang, Chuan Chen & Martek Igor

To cite this article: QingPing Zhong, Hui Tang, Chuan Chen & Martek Igor (2023) A
Comprehensive Appraisal of the Factors Impacting Construction Project Delivery Method
Selection: A Systematic Analysis, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 22:2,
802-820, DOI: 10.1080/13467581.2022.2060983

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2060983

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group on behalf of the Architectural
Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of
Korea and Architectural Society of China.

Published online: 28 May 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2390

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tabe20
JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
2023, VOL. 22, NO. 2, 802–820
https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2060983

A Comprehensive Appraisal of the Factors Impacting Construction Project

Delivery Method Selection: A Systematic Analysis
QingPing Zhonga, Hui Tanga, Chuan Chenb and Martek Igor c

a
Institute for Disaster Management and Reconstruction, Sichuan University, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, China; bBusiness School,
Wangjiang Campus, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China; cSchool of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University,
Geelong, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Construction projects may be procured by various means: design-build (DB), design-bid-build Received 18 May 2021
(DBB), construction management at risk (CM-at risk), and integrated project delivery (IPD), Accepted 25 March 2022
among many others. Each approach must be considered in selecting the most appropriate KEYWORDS
procurement strategy for any specific project. Thus, in making that choice, a selection approach Project delivery method;
along with selection criteria need to be considered. This study seeks to reassert clarity by PDM; project procurement;
consolidating the available literature on factors impacting project delivery selection and procurement selection;
presenting a definitive, comprehensive list of those factors. The approach relies on systematic delivery selection
analysis. An initial retrieved 224 papers across 53 journals was reduced to 45 papers relevant to
construction projects. These each offered between four to 39 factors. An examination and
rationalization of themes distilled to a definitive 22 criteria and 35 sub-criteria. Chief among
these, in descending order of reported frequency, were: owner related issues, contractor issues,
time, cost, quality, contract disputes, risk, market conditions, regulation, complexity, innova­
tion, scope, site, community support, project size, project type, resource availability, natural
disasters, political impact, sustainability, culture, and safety. The factors will vary project-to-
project, and a discussion of the impacts of these factors on the project delivery method
selection is offered.

1. Introduction
The Project Delivery Method (PDM) selection in con­
struction is a key step impacting project success
(Dorsey 1997; Naoum 1994; Rwelamila and Meyer
1999). PDM describes how project participants are
organized to interact in transforming the owner’s
goals and objectives into a finished facility (Chen
et al. 2011). It directly affects construction perfor­
mance, including delivery speed, cost, and quality (Al
Khalil 2002; Diao, Dong, and Cui 2018; Noorzai 2020).
PDM can be viewed as both a contractual structure and
compensation arrangement by which project owners
acquire a completed facility fit to their needs
(Mafakheri et al. 2007). There are several PDMs, and
the most common approaches are design-bid-build
(DBB), design-build (DB), construction management
at risk (CM-at risk) – also known as construction man­
agement as general contractor (GC), engineering-
procurement-construction (EPC), and integrated pro­
ject delivery (IPD) (Li, Qin, and Li 2015; Qiang et al.
2015).
The appropriateness of the PDM selected dramati­
cally impacts the performance of project implementa­
tion (Noorzai 2020). Past studies show that choosing
the most appropriate PDM helps mitigate contract
conflicts and cuts project costs from 10% to 30%
(Hashem M. Mehany, Bashettiyavar, Esmaeili, & Gad,
2018). Some studies have concluded that the DB and
CM methods offer greater advantages in terms of time
and cost compared with DBB (Konchar and Sanvido
1998; Molenaar and Franz 2018). Researchers have also
shown that these advantages do not apply to all pro­
jects but vary according to project type
(Demetracopoulou, O’Brien, and Khwaja 2020). DB
can result in higher initial costs and fewer competitive
bids when used on inappropriate projects (D. Q. Tran
and Molenaar 2014). However, it is not an easy task to
identify the most suitable PDM due to the large num­
ber of uncertainties that can surround projects at the
implementation stages (Chen et al. 2011).
In selecting a PDM, determining the appropriate
selection criteria and evaluating the effectiveness are
vital first steps. The selection criteria of the PDM
remains an active theme in project management
research due to ever-evolving considerations and
increasing project complexity. As early as 1985,
NEDO identified nine criteria for project delivery
selection (NEDO 1985). Since then, researchers have
enriched this knowledge field, adding numerous var­
iations to the criteria list. However, while these

CONTACT Chuan Chen chenchuanscu@126.com Business School, Wangjiang Campus, Sichuan University, Wuhou District, Chengdu, Sichuan
610065, China
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Korea and
Architectural Society of China.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
various lists enrich understanding of the factors
impacting PDM selection, their divergent and incon­
sistent emphases have in fact brought some confu­
sion to the process of PDM selection itself. It is thus
timely that the body of knowledge available on PDM
selection is interrogated with a view to establishing
a comprehensive list of criteria, and in so doing,
rationalize the tools available in the task of PDM
selection. This study attempts to comprehensively
identify and analyze previous work in this area and
identify a clear set of criteria relevant to PDM
selection.
2. Overview of Project Delivery Method (PDM)
and selection
2.1. Major delivery methods in practice
There are various methods of project delivery used in
the construction industry. Of these, the design-bid-
build (DBB) – also referred to as the “traditional” deliv­
ery method – includes three key stakeholders: owner,
designer (architect), and general contractor (builder).
In this configuration, the owner monitors and controls
the project performance of the designer’s and contrac­
tor’s activities to assure adherence to contract require­
ments (Mahdi and Alreshaid 2005; Victor Sanvido and
Konchar 1999).
In the design-build (DB) method, the owner con­
tracts with a single entity responsible for both design
and construction (Noorzai 2020). This is a preferred
option when a single source of responsibility and
accountability is desired by the owner. In particular,
as it is a single entity that is responsible for both design
and construction, the adversarial relationship that can
arise in DBB is obviated. (Mafakheri et al. 2007).
In the construction management/general contrac­
tor (CM/GC) format, the construction manager is the
general contractor hired by the owner to provide con­
sultation regarding the project’s operational and finan­
cial aspects. Nevertheless, there are still two separate
design and construction contracts to be managed.
Thus, the construction manager is responsible for pro­
viding consultation on architectural services in evalu­
ating costs, schedule, materials, and the like, and
advising on optimizations and design alternatives.
A construction manager is also responsible for moni­
toring and controlling the construction process in
terms of costs, time, and other requirements to ensure
a guaranteed maximum price for the project
(Mafakheri et al. 2007; Victor Sanvido and Konchar
1999).
In the CM/PM format, the owner outsources all or
part of the project management process to a program
manager (or program management agency). The pro­
gram manager could be the project manager for the
entire process or the owner’s agent to support and
803
supplement the facility management expertise. It
should be mentioned that program management
tasks could be delegated to any or both design and
build entities (Mafakheri et al. 2007).
Construction projects are traditionally based on
transformation theory(Koskela 1992), which can also
explain PDM. The difference between different PDMs
lies in the work breakdown and the allocation of
responsibilities and risks in the implementation pro­
cess. Participants at each stage focus on transforming
resources into project deliverables to increase the
value of the project(Koskela 2000; Tuholski 2008).
However, the shortcomings of the transformation the­
ory are also obvious. When each participant tries to
transform best individually, it often ignores the next
activity or end customer’s need. In addition, transfor­
mation theory does not involve how to use resources
most effectively. These defects have led to a large
amount of information loss, rework and waste
(Bølviken, Rooke, and Koskela 2014). This is also one
of the reasons why many delivery methods are gradu­
ally developing towards integration.
2.2. The selection of project delivery method
The owner usually determines the type of PDM prior to
the start of the project. Decision-making is a complex
process that arises from the uncertainty of the deci­
sion-making environment and the construction project
itself (Su et al. 2019). In point of fact, the PDMs selec­
tion problem can be considered a multi-criteria deci­
sion making problem (Li, Qin, and Li 2015). Previous
researches on the selection of project delivery systems
consist broadly of two types; the selection approach
and the selection criteria. On the one hand, the selec­
tion approach research focuses on developing
a selection model, typically transforming fuzzy judg­
ment into an intuitive and easy-to-operate procedural
process (An et al. 2018; Li et al. 2019; Zhao et al. 2017).
The selection criteria research aims, on the other hand,
to find, weigh and examine criteria considered in prac­
tice (Demetracopoulou, O’Brien, and Khwaja 2020;
Mosley and Bubshait 2017).
There is no “one-size-fits-all” best project delivery
method. The selection of the project delivery system
should be based on specific project requirements, spe­
cific characteristics and circumstances of the owner, and
the successful formulation of the project team(Moore
2000). In determining the PDM, it is essential to identify
appropriate selection criteria and evaluate their effec­
tiveness. The selection criteria of PDM have always been
a hot topic in the field of project management, and with
the complexity of project development, it has been
evolving, subdividing, and concretizing. Criteria may
include but are not limited to technical excellence,
management capability, financial capability, personnel
qualifications, prior experience, safety, scope alternates
804 Q. ZHONG ET AL.
and optional features offered, project completion data,
and risk to the owner organization. A list of selection
criteria can improve identifying the project features and
selecting a more appropriate delivery process.
Although some studies have compared various deliv­
ery methods and come up with meaningful recommen­
dations, these studies generally use the method of case
comparison. For example, Alleman et al. (2017) compared
291 U.S. highway projects that alternative methods per­
formed better than traditional methods. (Molenaar and
Franz 2018) continued the work of CII(V. Sanvido and
Konchar 1998), compared 212 projects using DBB, CMR,
and DB, and compared the cost and schedule perfor­
mance of these delivery methods. It is believed that DB
has the best schedule performance, and the completed
unit cost of the DB project is also comparable to that of
DBB and slightly lower than CMR projects.
These studies provide meaningful guidance for own­
ers’ decision-making. However, the owner cannot simply
apply these conclusions and need to find a suitable deliv­
ery method based on some factors. Choosing suitable
factors from a list of influencing factors as comprehen­
sively as possible is the basis of the decision-making
method and the premise of evaluating the performance
of the project delivery method.
3. Research methodology
The selection of a PDM depends upon many factors. This
research aims to identify indicators by a comprehensive
literature review. A systematic approach is adopted to
review and analyze the findings of previous studies
related to selection criteria of project delivery systems.
Search Engine
T/A/K Search
Stage 1
Filtering from
Construction
Management perspective
Selected Papers
Content examination
Stage 2
Stage 3
Findings
Figure 1. Three stage research approach.
A series of preparatory work was carried out before
the formal work, including a preliminary reading of the
literature, identifying similar keywords, and identifying
research areas. There are different expressions of project
delivery methods in various works of literature.
Therefore, the preparation work before the study first
identifies these expressions, and through the previous
literature reading, identifies five similar presentations
such as “project delivery method/system,” “project pro­
curement method/system,” “project contract system.”
Additionally, because the words “project” and “delivery”
have different meanings in different fields, the two
words are combined to avoid the search scope expand­
ing too much.
A systematic approach is adopted to review and
analyze the findings of previous studies related to
PDM selection factors. The methodology adopted fol­
lows a similar approach to that used by Ke et al. (2009);
(Yuan and Shen 2011). It involves a three-stage
approach, including six steps, as illustrated in Figure 1.
In the first stage, a comprehensive desktop search
was conducted under “T/A/K (title/ abstract/keyword).”
The main purpose at this stage was to ascertain the
level of attention afforded PDM in the research litera­
ture body, as well as establishing boundaries of the
study. Three mainstream databases, Science Direct,
Scopus, and Web of Science, were finally determined
through preliminary preparation and screening. These
databases contain a wide range of documents in dif­
ferent fields, reducing omissions. Keywords such as
“project delivery system,” “project procurement sys­
tem,” “project contract system,” “project procurement
method” were entered in the “T/A/K” section in each
database, respectively. The article is limited to “article”
Science direct, Scopus
and Web of Science
Papers
Journals
224 papers retrieved
across 53 journals
Final Papers 45 papers remained
Method
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 805

Table 1. Literature searched results from the databases. Table 2. 22 criteria and 35 sub-criteria determining PDM
Database selection, as extracted from 45 themed papers.
Results Criteria Sub-criteria count
Keywords Web of Science ScienceDirect Scopus
Issue of Owner Owner’s Role and 19
Project delivery method 139 172 222 Responsibility
Project delivery system 126 153 188 Ability of Owner 70
Project procurement method 14 20 16 Owner’s Involvement 21
Project procurement system 8 17 14 Owner’s Type 13
Project contract system 1 1 1 Trust in Other Participant 4
Issue of Contractor Availability 25
Experience and Capability 89
Project Time Certainty of Time 5
Time Control in phases 29
and “review” and published before March 2020. The Time Requirement/Constraint 29
whole search code and results in each database are Project Cost Certainty of Cost 7
Cost Control 38
listed as followed in Table 1. Cost Requirement/Constraint 19
In the second stage, firstly, the same articles Project Quality Quality Control 45
Constructability 5
searched from different databases are merged. The Contract and Dispute Contract and Dispute 44
searched articles involve many fields, including con­ Project Risk Risk Allocation 7
Risk Management 39
struction management, energy, computer science, Market Issue Finance and Funding 10
health care science, etc., then visual filtering of articles Price Competition 6
was conducted from a Construction Management per­ Market Condition 24
Law and Regulatory Law and Regulatory 38
spective. The search retrieved 224 papers across 53 Project’s Complexity Project’s Complexity 32
journals. Flexibility and Innovation Flexibility and Innovation 28
Project Scope Definition of Scope 20
Titles, abstracts, and keywords from the retrieved Site Issue Site Issue 19
papers were examined to determine content pertinent Public and Community Public and Community 19
Support Support
to factors influencing the selecting PDMs in the con­ Project Size Project Size 19
struction area. Documents that are not related to the Project Type Project Type 13
Resources Resources 12
selection criteria of the project delivery method were Natural Disaster Natural Disaster 11
filtered out, such as the PDM efficiency, contractor Political Impact Political Impact 10
selection, risk allocation, etc. At the same time, Sustainability Sustainability 6
Culture Culture 6
a research report by NEDO and a conference paper Safety Safety 3
by PMI were included in the list because of the earliest
proposed indicators and their impact in practice,
respectively. Overall, 45 papers were identified for
Table 3 shows the journal sources of the 45 selected
further analysis. The articles, journals, and authors are
papers. Although there was no restriction on the jour­
listed in the appendix.
nal’s scope when searching for the target literature, the
In the third stage, the remaining 45 papers were
subjected to content analysis to identify factors results of the visual review show that the top six jour­
impacting project delivery choice and scrutinized. nals were in fact the top international journals in con­
struction engineering management (Chau 1997). The
top six journals total delivered 26 articles, accounting
4. Analysis of findings for 58% of the total retrieved studies. See Table 3.
Figure 3 shows the trend of the criteria proposed by
4.1. Results the researcher over time. Since NEDO proposed nine
Table 2 and Figure 2 present the selection criteria PDM selection criteria in 1985, scholars have continu­
identified from the selected publications. The PDM ously enriched this indicator system, increasing the
selection criteria are effective strategies that augment total number trend. The rigid requirements of time,
project success. The authors identified 784 criteria cost, risk, quality, safety, and owner responsibility, ori­
across 45 papers, with individual documents offering ginally closely linked to the project management sys­
between four to 39 factors. Following systematic ana­ tem, have gradually expanded to community
lysis, these were rationalized into 22 criteria and 35 participation, political and government regulation,
sub-criteria. In the analysis process, items with the and the external environment. This is in line with the
same or similar meanings were folded into a single trend of increasing scale and complexity of construc­
term class (Chen et al. 2011). For example, regarding tion projects. Large-scale and complex projects require
the criteria “time”, different studies used expressions project organizations and members to cope with more
such as speed, schedule, and milestone. These were challenging environments. As in cross-regional (includ­
grouped under the same broad category while holding ing cross-border) projects, the organization and colla­
onto any distinctions within the sub-criteria. See boration of internal project members are more
Table 2. restricted by external laws, local support, and cultural
806 Q. ZHONG ET AL.
Figure 2. The Count of Criteria from the Selected Papers.
Table 3. Distribution of articles about the PDM selection factor
across journals.
journal title
Journal of Management in Engineering
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
International Journal of Project Management
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management
Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering
and Construction
Advances in Civil Engineering
Building and Environment
Construction Management & Economics
Construction Research Congress 2018: Infrastructure and
Facility Management
Expert Systems with Applications
Group Decision and Negotiation
Independent Journal of Management & Production
Information
Journal of computing in civil engineering
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
NEDO
PMI
Proc., Resilient Structures and Sustainable Construction
Proceedings of the 29th IPMA World Congress Wc2015
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management
Procurement and Law
Transportation research record
Total Count
factors. Owners and contractors must abandon some
requirements to balance these constraints when deter­
count mining delivery methods. For example, although the
9 DB method can achieve a shorter construction period,
6 the method has only a few entities with management
4
3 rights. The local government may require an increase
2 in the participation and share of local enterprises in the
2
2 project management organization due to the expecta­
tion of improving the competitiveness of local enter­
1
1 prises. Therefore, the general contractors need to make
1 some compromises, abandon DB and switch to other
1
delivery methods.
1 Figures 4 to 6 reflect the evolution of research
1 papers on selection factors based on project types.
1
1 The research on general project selection factors still
1 dominates in terms of the total amount, with 27 arti­
1
cles accounting for 60%. However, the increased
1 researchers realize a strong relationship between the
1
1 type of project and the choice of project delivery
1 method. Each project in every industry has character­
1
1
istics that may influence the choice of project delivery
method(Touran et al. 2009). Research on the selection
1 factors of specific types of projects is receiving wide­
45
spread attention. This dividing line appeared in
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
Figure 3. The PDM selection factors proposed in each article.
2010 ~ 2011. Figures 5 and 6 reflect the changes and
trends of different types of PDM selection criteria over
time. Among them, Figure 5 shows the number of
selected indicators in each article considering the pro­
ject type. The number of selection criteria for general
project delivery methods reached 34 criteria, while the
selection criteria for transportation and highway engi­
neering reached a maximum of 39 criteria. Figure 6
reveals the number of articles based on project
research types around 2010. Before 2010, the research
on the selection factors of general project delivery
methods dominated, reaching 15 articles, accounting
for 88%. Only two articles looked at building and water
facilities. After 2010, there were 28 research articles,
and the specific project types gradually increased to
57% (16 papers), while the proportion of general pro­
jects dropped to 43% (12 papers). A total of seven
types of projects have been studied, of which trans­
portation engineering, including highways, has
become the dominant research object, a total of 10
articles accounting for 36%.
807
4.2. Criteria description and explanation
5. Owner related issues
Owner-related issues were ranked first in all factors
and were mentioned 127 times. Owner’s issues
include owner’s role and responsibility (NEDO
1985; Ng et al. 2002; Qiang et al. 2015), owner’s
ability (Gordon 1994; Luu, Ng, and Chen 2003; Xia
et al. 2013), owner’s willingness to participate (Chen
et al. 2011; Demetracopoulou, O’Brien, and Khwaja
2020; Khwaja et al. 2018; Luu, Ng, and Chen 2003),
owner’s type (Liu et al. 2015; Luu, Ng, and Chen
2003), owner’s risk preference (An et al. 2018; Luu,
Ng, and Chen 2005) and mutual trust (Luu, Ng, and
Chen 2005; Qiang et al. 2015). DBB is more adopted
when owners want to be dominant in management
and exercise more rights.
The government or other public sector owners may
intend to choose DB or CM method because they are
unable to participate in project implementation in-
808 Q. ZHONG ET AL.

1, 2% 1, 3% 2, 5%
1, 2%
1, 2%

10, 22%

1, 2%
1, 2%

27, 60%

airport building electric power station

general project infrastructure mechanical
transportation and highway utility project water facility

Figure 4. Counts of papers based on projects types.

Figure 5. The criteria in each paper of different project type.

depth due to lack of project construction experience
and control capacity. If the owner and contractor cannot
trust each other, the owner has to spend a lot of money
and energy to monitor the execution of the project. The
owner’s sufficient technical knowledge and experience
is also a factor that owners need to assess. Although it is
not necessary to have the same knowledge and cap­
abilities as the contractor, the owner must still have
sufficient knowledge to understand the contractor’s
behavior and communicate well. All these characteris­
tics of the owners inevitably affect the relationship with
the contractor, the allocation of risks, and the project
management contract. The owner shall define the scope
and extent of his authorization and establish the basic
framework of the contract.
6. Contractor related issues
Overall, contractor-related issues ranked second among
all factors and were mentioned a total of 114 times.
Some works of literature list competitive contractors in
the top ten most influential parameters (Luu, Ng, and
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
Figure 6. Comparison of articles before and after 2010 according to the project type.
Chen 2003; Xia et al. 2013). Contractor-related issues
include the availability of the appropriate and experi­
enced contractor (Gordon 1994; Luu, Ng, and Chen
2005; D. Q. Tran and Molenaar 2014) and contractor’s
capabilities (Chen et al. 2011; Qiang et al. 2015). The
availability of contractors needs to consider the number
of potential contractors on the market and the degree of
market information accessibility. Contractor’s capabil­
ities and experience include but are not limited to simi­
lar project experience (X. Ding et al. 2014), experience
with a particular delivery method (Lopez, Mascione, and
Liu 2017), the ability to use advanced technology
(Marzouk and Elmesteckawi 2015), experienced
employee acquisition (Dai Q Tran et al. 2013), labor
productivity (Luu, Ng, and Chen 2003), ensuring the
availability and stability of the supply chain (Moon
et al. 2011), construction arrangement, such as adjust­
ment and integration of activity sequence, and super­
vision, etc. (Alleman et al. 2017; Demetracopoulou,
O’Brien, and Khwaja 2020; Khwaja et al. 2018; Lopez,
Mascione, and Liu 2017; Noorzai 2020). In addition, the
sooner the contractor participates in the project, the
more efficiently the project can be implemented. As
the survey conducted by Touran et al. (2011) found,
the early involvement of construction contractors
through CMR contracts not only establishes a budget
earlier than DBB but also provides designers with real-
time cost estimates and constructability analysis to
improve the project’s bottom line.
809
7. Time and scheduling
Time is still a significant constraint and objective in
most projects and is mentioned 63 times in different
expressions. The criteria can be expressed by time,
schedule or speed, etc., and be divided into time cer­
tainty, time control in phases, and the time require­
ment. When signing the contract, the owner and the
contractor need to agree to the degree of certainty
that they will complete the project on the date (Ng
et al. 2002). Different PDMs have different abilities to
shorten the time caused by the organization relation­
ship and operation mode, and the project owner needs
to judge which delivery method has the most out­
standing ability. On-time completion (Luu, Ng, and
Chen 2003)or delivery speed within the planned time
(Moon et al. 2011)is one of the requirements that the
owners and the contractor both expect. Owners super­
vise and monitor project delivery speed by setting
strict milestones or deadlines (Lopez, Mascione, and
Liu 2017; Mahdi and Alreshaid 2005) or establishing an
incentive mechanism of shortening the time to ensure
on-time completion and delay reduction.
The contractor’s work is relatively specific and com­
plex. The delivery method should have the following
functions to achieve the owner’s goal, including the
time estimation as accurate as possible when signing
the contract; incentive mechanisms to ensure the work
of the planning, design, pre-construction preparation,
construction, procurement stages be shortened
810 Q. ZHONG ET AL.
(Alhazmi and McCaffer 2000; Kumaraswamy and
Dissanayaka 2001; Mostafavi and Karamouz 2010;
Oyetunji and Anderson 2006); reducing interference
between the stage or achieving overlap between dif­
ferent phase or work (Alhazmi and McCaffer 2000;
Lopez, Mascione, and Liu 2017); a quick feedback
mechanism to adjust the follow-up work(Alhazmi and
McCaffer 2000). Rapid agreement among the partici­
pating entities is an organizational guarantee to
achieve a shorter duration of each phase.
8. Project cost issues
Cost criteria ranked fourth and are mentioned 64
times. The criteria can be divided into cost certainty,
cost control, cost requirement/constraint similar to the
time criteria. Most owners in regular business projects
may seek the minimum costs (Mostafavi and Karamouz
2010; Oyetunji and Anderson 2006), but some just
expect the completion within budget(Luu, Ng, and
Chen 2005; Marzouk and Elmesteckawi 2015). This
cost includes the direct cost based on design and
resource limitation, waste, rework, waiting caused by
poor communication, and so on due to improper con­
struction management. In a broader perspective, main­
tenance and operation costs are also included in the
cost concept. Choosing the proper delivery method
can reduce the uncertainty in design and construction
(D. Q. Tran and Molenaar 2014), and reduce the cost
caused by waste and idle resources, rework and delay.
The owner needs to establish the project cost target
or requirement as early as possible and the cost
change and degree that the project may occur (An
et al. 2018; Mostafavi and Karamouz 2010).
Meanwhile, the owner needs to estimate the precise
cost before contract signing (Liu et al. 2016; Mahdi and
Alreshaid 2005), identify the profit from cost savings
and encouragement to contractors (Moon et al. 2011),
and the less cost of each stage of work (Alhazmi and
McCaffer 2000; Noorzai 2020; Touran et al. 2011).
Different delivery methods have various cost control
means and emphases. DBB method needs to control
the cost increase caused by the loss of information
transmitted between different phases. DB and CM
need to control the management cost of overlapping.
The determination of the lowest cost varies according
to the degree of integration of design and construc­
tion. In practice, value engineering may be an effective
tool to optimize costs for both owners and contractors.
(Al Khalil 2002; Mafakheri et al. 2007)
9. Project quality issues
Quality can be considered as the degree to which
the designers and contractors can satisfy the owner.
The maximization control of aesthetic and physical
quality is a significant factor to be considered
(Mafakheri et al. 2007). Also, the contractor’s reputa­
tion, aesthetics, and confidence in design (Ng et al.
2002) will be considered by the owner. Ensuring that
the project deliverables meet the owner’s needs is
the most basic requirement of any delivery method.
However, the efforts and measures vary from the
organizational differences of delivery methods. In
DBB method, each stage is highly specialized, and
there is a quality inspection mechanism for mutual
supervision between stages, which can ensure the
overall quality under ideal conditions.
However, because of the stages of separation, par­
ticipants will focus on improving the quality of the
work on their own. It is easy to ignore the quality
requirements from the owner and the quality connec­
tion between the stages. Quality requirements can be
divided into stage quality measures (Alhazmi and
McCaffer 2000; Luu, Ng, and Chen 2005; D. Q. Tran
and Molenaar 2014; D. Q. Tran, Molenaar, and Alarcon
2016), the degree of completion of work in each stage
(Gordon 1994; D. Q. Tran and Molenaar 2014) and the
constructability of design (D. Q. Tran, Molenaar, and
Alarcon 2016). Constructability is a bridge connecting
design and construction. By examining the construct­
ability of design in advance, the project construction
waste, rework and time delay can be reduced(Al Khalil
2002; Alleman et al. 2017; Songer and Molenaar 1996;
D. Q. Tran and Molenaar 2014).
10. Contract and disputes
Issues related to contracts and disputes are totally
counted 44 times. They are different from the physical
characteristics of the project and from the character­
istics of the owners and contractors, but they are clo­
sely related to them. The number and size of contracts
in different delivery methods are different (Khwaja
et al. 2018; Oyetunji and Anderson 2006). In a single
contract, a large number of activities convert from
external contracts into the internal workflow, which
significantly reduces risks and the possibility of dis­
putes. (D. Q. Tran and Molenaar 2014) Multiple con­
tracts are prone to create gaps or overlaps between
contracts and arise disputes between stakeholders.
However, this does not mean that a delivery method
with a few contracts must be better than a delivery
method with a large number of contracts. For the
owner, the more sub-project means that the project
is more fully understood and the scope of work is more
clearly defined. For contractors, because of the
upstream and downstream workflow constraints, the
quality can be more strictly controlled. Whether or not
there will be disputes depends more on the clarity of
the contract and the completeness of the contract
scope (Hosseini et al. 2016; Touran et al. 2011).
Although the contract seems to be the result of select­
ing the delivery method, the owner should fully predict
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
the type of contract (Hosseini et al. 2016), evaluate its
management capabilities, and in turn make appropri­
ate decisions.
11. Risk management issues
Risk factors are mentioned 46 times in collected articles
and come from all aspects of project implementation,
including the scope definition, site, resources, technol­
ogy, etc. The risks include initial project risk assessment,
risk allocation between owners and contractors, and risk
management during implementation. The initial risk
assessment should not only consider the risks caused
by the uncertainties of the natural environment, tech­
nology, and resources (J. Y. Ding, Wang, and Hu 2018;
Qiang et al. 2015; D. Q. Tran, Molenaar, and Alarcon
2016) but also the risks caused by the discreteness of
work and organizational arrangement from the delivery
method (Lopez, Mascione, and Liu 2017; Mostafavi and
Karamouz 2010; Oyetunji and Anderson 2006;
D. Q. Tran, Molenaar, and Alarcon 2016). Appropriate
delivery methods can reduce organizational risks. The
higher the integration level of the organization, the
more accurate and comprehensive judgment of techni­
cal risks will be made by all professionals. From the
perspective of risk, project delivery means the process
of distributing and controlling risks between owners
and contractors through organization and work distri­
bution. Theoretically, all risks can be transferred to an
organization through the use of specific delivery meth­
ods. A perfect design and construction contract may
pass almost all the usual risks at a price to a single
contractor organization (Liu et al. 2015; Ng et al. 2002;
Touran et al. 2011). Risk management can be conducted
by identifying potential changes in construction(Lopez,
Mascione, and Liu 2017), minimizing the risk factors
(Moon et al. 2011), and transferring risks to more risk-
capable participants through contracts(Mostafavi and
Karamouz 2010; Oyetunji and Anderson 2006)
12. External market issues
External market issues include financing and funding,
price competition, and market competition status and
are mentioned 40 times. No project can exist indepen­
dently of the external economic environment. In the
initial stage of the project, the owner needs to obtain
sufficient financing or funding for the project and deal
with the risks caused by future price changes (NEDO
1985; D. Q. Tran and Molenaar 2014). It is necessary for
the owner to know the accurate price of the project
early and how much must pay at the specified time.
Early price identification helps the owner to under­
stand the work content and risks, and meanwhile,
promotes the contractor to optimize the organization
and use of resources (Alhazmi and McCaffer 2000).
811
Decentralized and sequential implementation work is
difficult to achieve early estimation and prediction.
Under DB and CM methods, contractors improve the
accuracy of early determination through integrated
professional collaboration. Although owners and con­
tractors cannot control fluctuating resource prices,
proper delivery methods can effectively reduce pro­
curement price fluctuations (Noorzai 2020; D. Q. Tran,
Molenaar, and Alarcon 2016). Price competition covers
such issues as value for money, maintenance, costs,
and competitive tendering (Ng et al. 2002), which
cover all stages of the project transaction. The price
competitiveness of the delivery method depends
mainly on the integration of the work in one stage
and between stages. The higher the integration, the
more the contractor can convert external costs into
internal costs.
External market competitiveness refers to the level
of competition in the market regarding this project
(Chen et al. 2011; Luu, Ng, and Chen 2005). The price
of the delivery method is affected by the degree of
market competition (Luu, Ng, and Chen 2005). The
number of potential contractors, the degree of market
development, and the market size are common seg­
mentation factors (Demetracopoulou, O’Brien, and
Khwaja 2020; Gordon 1994). The highly integrated
PDM requires enterprises with strong comprehensive
capabilities to complete (An et al. 2018; D. Q. Tran,
Molenaar, and Alarcon 2016). Only when the construc­
tion market is developed and there are a sufficient
number of contractors can there be enterprises with
adequate capacity in the market. Under certain condi­
tions, such as post-disaster situations, the construction
trading market may shrink due to risks, materials, and
project owners cannot find contractors with sufficient
capacity to participate in market competition.
13. Laws, regulations, and policy impacts
Factors about law and regulation are addressed totally
38 times, and political impact are mentioned ten times
in previous papers. In almost all project management
processes, the influences from laws, regulations, and
policies are always the most significant external con­
straints. The realization of the PDM is restricted, sup­
ported, or encouraged by the legal and political
framework of the country where the project is located.
For instance, the project in U.S. must also comply with
federal, state, and local laws (Demetracopoulou,
O’Brien, and Khwaja 2020; Touran et al. 2011). Laws
and regulations affect the legitimacy of PDMs, which in
turn generates project risks. The laws and regulations
not only include regulations on the applicability of
delivery methods but also include environmental con­
straints (D. Q. Tran and Molenaar 2014), labor policies
(Demetracopoulou, O’Brien, and Khwaja 2020; Touran
812 Q. ZHONG ET AL.
et al. 2011), and work standards (D. Q. Tran, Molenaar,
and Alarcon 2016). The policy is another issue that
owners and contractors need to consider (X. Ding
et al. 2014; Qiang et al. 2015). Most of the investors
or final beneficiaries of construction projects that
involve delivery methods are related to the govern­
ment. The government expresses its risk propensity
and willingness by formulating policies to change pro­
ject participant behavior.
14. Project complexity
Complexity indicates whether the owner has a special
requirement that requires innovation and a unique
construction method (Liu et al. 2016; NEDO 1985; Ng
et al. 2002) and is mentioned 32 times. Project com­
plexity is mainly reflected in its technical and organiza­
tional complexity (Jimoh, Oyewobi, and Aliu 2016;
Qiang et al. 2015). Complex technical requirements
need more professionals and complex organizational
structures. Complex projects also require precise con­
tracts to coordinate the behavior of participants. The
complexity of the project affects the willingness of the
owners and contractors, which in turn affects the
choice of delivery methods. Owners of simple projects
are usually willing to choose DBB to strengthen mon­
itoring each step of the project. Owners of complex
projects may be more willing to choose DB or CM and
authorize contractors with stronger capabilities to
complete the construction process. Correspondingly,
if comprehensive capabilities are sufficient, the con­
tractor will be willing to undertake more complex
projects through DB or CM, and on the contrary, the
contractor tends to only undertake a certain profes­
sional work in the DBB. The project complexity will also
reduce the effectiveness of communication between
project participants, increase the difficulty of flexible
response to changes, and bring more difficulties to the
PDM. More complex projects are more prone to unex­
pected changes, so more structured delivery methods
and contract systems should be established at the
beginning of the project to reduce the risk of changes.
15. Flexibility and innovation
Flexibility refers to frequent changes in design and
construction once the work has begun on site (Liu
et al. 2016). The delivery method should be flexible
enough to accommodate design changes caused by
changes in the environment or requirements and be
able to implement design changes quickly during the
design and construction phases. (Ng et al. 2002).
Flexibility depends on information transmission and
feedback path, decision-making mechanism, resource
supply mechanism, etc. The information in DBB needs
to be transmitted between the contractor, the
designer, and the owner, and even more participants
when the change occurs. And only when multiple
participants have made the decisions, the changes
can be implemented. Whereas the DB or CM method
usually has only one general contractor and the infor­
mation only needs to be transmitted within the gen­
eral contractor and decided by itself. Another function
needed is innovation constantly to cope with complex
and changeable environments (Demetracopoulou,
O’Brien, and Khwaja 2020; Xia et al. 2013). The appro­
priate delivery method should be unique in terms of
contract expression, coordination, and cooperation
mechanisms based on the uniqueness of the project.
There should be a buffer to encourage designers and
contractors to innovate to reconcile design documents
and implementation measures (Moon et al. 2011).
16. Definition of scope
Defining and managing the project scope influence
the project’s overall success and be mentioned 20
times. Project scope refers to the project’s deliverables
and works required to create those deliverables (PMI
2013). Defining the work needed to accomplish clearly
is an essential condition for determining the method of
delivery. The employer needs and has the responsibil­
ity to clearly understand the scope of the project work
and deliver it accurately to the contractor (Al Khalil
2002; Mahdi and Alreshaid 2005; Noorzai 2020; Xia
et al. 2013). The project scope describes the business
need, justification, requirements, and current bound­
aries for the project. The project scope also provides
the list of deliverables and acceptance criteria for the
project and its products, services, and results. On the
other hand, the project scope will inevitably change
with the actual situation during project implementa­
tion (Mafakheri et al. 2007). In this case, the project
scope change should be rapid and accurate. It is rela­
tively easy for owners to determine the project scope
for regular commercial projects because there are
many similar cases to support, and the external envir­
onment does not change dramatically. But for other
projects, such as reconstruction projects after
a disaster, technical innovation projects, it is more
difficult to define the scope accurately. Whether the
project owner or contractor, or other project partici­
pants need to clarify the specific work of their own
participation in the project. Only under such
a requirement can participants arrange their resources
and methods reasonably and clarify their responsibil­
ities and obligations. In some situations, such as emer­
gency construction, overseas engineering, etc.,
defining the project’s scope may even be fatal to the
project’s success.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
17. Project size and scale
Project size is not one of the major drivers in the
selection process but still may be significant
(Mafakheri et al. 2007). The project size can be mea­
sured by the number of subprojects or work packages
in the project and their size (Gordon 1994) or even its
estimated value (Marzouk and Elmesteckawi 2015).
A big scale of the project means that more protocols
are needed to regulate the work of different profes­
sionals and teams and more resources, and more struc­
tured tools for project management (Chen et al. 2011;
Liu et al. 2016). DBB method is not suitable for large-
scale or mega-projects because it has to face a lot of
work packages from design, bidding, construction, and
professional subcontracting. A large number of exter­
nal agreements between work packages require
appropriate and efficient organizational coordination
mechanisms.
18. Public participation and culture
Although public participation and cultural factors are
not the primary factors and are mentioned 19 times
and six times, respectively, they are unavoidable fac­
tors to almost all projects. The project is always in the
region’s public participation and cultural constraints,
where this cultural constraint runs throughout the
project. Objection from a neighbor or local lobby
group to construct the project (Marzouk and
Elmesteckawi 2015) will terminate the project from
the beginning. The bias toward bidding could impose
impacts on the selection process (Mafakheri et al.
2007). For instance, resources like raw materials and
workers in construction cannot be sufficient without
the local company or labor involvement. The relation­
ship between the contractor and local community or
stakeholders may hinder the project acceptance when
the project closed.
19. Resources supply
The effective supply of resources, including but not
limited to materials and quality of resources, are
considered to be related to the decision to choose
the delivery method. Materials availability means
the availability of materials as required in projects
specifications (Luu, Ng, and Chen 2005; Marzouk
and Elmesteckawi 2015). The market and purchasing
process of resources are two aspects to consider
when analyzing the availability of resources. Small-
scale and regional material markets may hinder or
weaken the willingness of foreign competent DB or
CM contractors to enter and force owners to choose
more decentralized DBB methods. The procurement
time, procurement entity, procurement price,
813
information, and other issues in the procurement
process directly or indirectly generate project risks
and choose different PDMs. Once the exact admis­
sion time of resources cannot be determined, the
risk of project implementation increases. The owner
should consider this risk and choose a delivery
method with maximum flexibility. If there are multi­
ple procurement entities, it may lead to differences
in procurement standards, procurement processes,
and procurement prices of materials and produce
a series of impacts in the process of transferring
materials among participants. Although some own­
ers may withdraw their rights to purchase materials,
there is still a large number of scattered material
distribution processes, which will cause uncertainty
in construction arrangements and confusion in the
work of the implementation team.
20. Project site
Site issues also are mentioned 19 times by researchers
to be a factor in choosing the delivery method. Site
constraints may affect the task allocation for design
and construction (An et al. 2018; Luu, Ng, and Chen
2003). Site constraints may affect the assignment of
design and construction tasks. When there are more
restrictions on the site, the owner needs to consider
whether to provide fewer design documents to allow
more space for the contractor to develop creativity and
innovation or provide more documents to describe the
adverse effects they may encounter (J. Y. Ding, Wang,
and Hu 2018; Xia et al. 2013). In addition, when site
uncertainty increases, owners should provide more
scope definitions or more information about uncer­
tainty and share their understanding and knowledge
with designers and contractors. By describing site con­
straints more clearly, the owner can provide fewer or
no design documents, allowing designers or contrac­
tors to find the best solution more autonomously.
21. Project type
Project type is mentioned only 13 times, but in the
delivery method choosing, the process is often used as
the first step (Chen et al. 2011). Construction projects
have industrial, infrastructure and buildings, and other
different types (Chen et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2016). Each
of them has its own characteristics, which leads to
significant differences in project management meth­
ods and technical arrangements. Different types of
projects require different delivery methods criteria, as
Chen et al. believe that “delivery speed” is mainly used
for building projects, but not for other types of pro­
jects. There is no comparability between different pro­
ject types (Chen et al. 2011).
814 Q. ZHONG ET AL.
22. Other project-related issues
Natural disasters and sustainability are the last two
factors mentioned by researchers a total of 17 times.
Natural disasters criteria refer to the probability of
natural disasters that might hinder the project activ­
ities (Marzouk and Elmesteckawi 2015). The organiza­
tion in any delivery method is always temporary. If
work is interrupted due to a high probability of disas­
ter, the stability of the organization will be challenged.
For owners and contractors, it is crucial to choose
a suitable delivery method to maintain the stability of
the entire organization, which can reduce the repeti­
tive work and waste caused by the replacement of
contractors or subcontractors.
Sustainability is not a traditional but an emerging
project objective. Most of the previous studies of
sustainability of construction focus on recycling and
waste reduction or sustainable construction
method. As a factor to select the delivery method,
it is a new area. A survey conducted by Touran in
2011 showed that most agencies interviewed had
not used these concepts in the past, but it was felt
that these factors would have to be considered in
future projects (Touran et al. 2011). Marzouk and
Elmesteckawi (2015) described sustainability as the
requirements to achieve the anticipated results of
the green revolution manifested in reductions in
energy consumption, better health, and higher pro­
ductivity for occupants. Sustainability in construc­
tion includes sustainable design and sustainable
construction. The PDM integrates the design with
construction and other processes to varying
degrees, and the appropriate delivery method can
transform the staged sustainability into the sustain­
ability of the entire process.
23. Discussion
Twenty-two factors are revealed to impact the selec­
tion of PDM, indicating the complexity of the decision
process. However, this list can only provide decision-
makers with a comprehensive project review or auxili­
ary decision-making tool. When facing actual construc­
tion projects, it is necessary to select more
comprehensively from the deep-seated issues among
these factors. These issues are also the points for future
research.
23.1. Interaction between factors
The factors do not exist independently but are related,
and the interaction may be positive or negative. For
example, Hosseini et al. (2016) believe that contractor’s
capability will be influenced by cost and time certainty,
risk allocation, and quality performance. At the same
time, the quality performance will be influenced by the
contractor’s capability, technological availability, com­
plexity, and innovation. Luu, Ng, and Chen (2005) also
observe that the potential influence between factors
may exist within projects. This means that the method
of establishing project delivery choices must consider
the established standards and the priority changes
brought about by the interaction between the stan­
dards. Just like the triangular relationship between the
three elements of traditional project management,
excessive attention to one element will bring about
negative changes in the corresponding performance
of other elements. For example, emphasizing quality
will increase costs and time. The understanding of
interaction increases the choice of effectively promot­
ing standards-based delivery methods but at the same
time increases the difficulty of the allocation of
resources, capabilities, and organizations for all parties.
However, most research on the choice of delivery
method will still not be able to consider the interaction
between factors fully. (Al Khalil 2002; Mafakheri et al.
2007); Mahdi and Alreshaid (2005); (Oyetunji and
Anderson 2006) used AHP or its improved methods,
but these methods are not effective in analyzing the
interaction between factors at the same level. It may be
an appropriate research direction to carefully consider
standard interactions from a system perspective to
determine the best balance.
23.2. The number, weight, and level of factors
This article ranks the factors according to the fre­
quency of the researcher’s attention. However, the
frequency mentioned by the researchers does not
represent the importance of the factor when choosing
PDM, nor does it mean that the actual project needs to
be used all, but only indicates the degree of recogni­
tion imputed by them. When determining the delivery
method, the decision-maker should take the following
steps to these factors: a) determines the priority of the
factors; b) determines the required factors; c) deter­
mines the weight of each factor, and d) determines the
interaction between the factors. For example, the pro­
ject type has only been mentioned 13 times, but it is
one of the highest priority factors determining the
delivery method and even in turn affects the ultimate
performance of the project(Luu, Ng, and Chen 2003).
Only after the project type is determined can the indi­
cators suitable for the project be chosen, and then the
owner can judge the factor’s importance. In certain
types of projects, some standards may be considered
the main standards, while others may be completely
ignored. Large and complex infrastructures may
require more consideration of the contractor’s capabil­
ities and flexibility to handle changes in delivery meth­
ods. Emergency construction projects have stricter
time limits. In the post-disaster reconstruction projects,
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
when various departments reach a consensus, political
influence can be ignored. In addition, public and com­
munity participation may also play an important role.
For the vast majority of conventional construction
projects, the first few items of statistical results become
the priority for selecting PDM. At the same time, some
of the statistical influencing factors have little influence
on PDM of general commercial projects, which will
hardly be considered during project decision-making
and construction, such as natural disasters, political
influence, culture, etc. After detailed geological inves­
tigation and comparison, the site selection of most
construction projects is extremely unlikely to encoun­
ter natural disasters during the construction period, so
there is no need to avoid risks through PDM selection.
However, with the increasing complexity of projects
and the increasing number of projects in specific envir­
onments, some early criteria that initially only a few
researchers recognized may gradually become main­
stream, such as design sustainability and construction
sustainability. This shows that the selection criteria and
weights of each project need to be redistributed
according to project characteristics, owner character­
istics, and external environment. The PDM selection
process is a complex task, and specific project goals
and conditions can play an important role. The unique
characteristics of each project should be evaluated to
determine which PDM can produce the best results
(Dai Q Tran et al. 2013). In other words, the owner
should determine the project needs, consider the spe­
cial circumstances of the project, and choose the best
method to achieve acceptable results.
23.3. The quantification of factors
The quantification of criteria is still an important research
area. Among the 22 criteria and 35 sub-criteria that are
identified, only a few of these can be quantified, notably
time and cost. The majority of index factors remain fuzzy
qualitative criteria. In practice, it is difficult to make appro­
priate choices precisely or immediately. Making choices
within a limited time window is, in some contexts, such as
in reconstruction after a disaster, precisely the most cri­
tical. How then to accurately reflect fuzzy criteria in prac­
tice is still a critical problem that needs further attention.
Professional investigation and subjective professional
judgment are currently the main methods of criteria
identification and assessment. Previous studies have con­
ducted a range of research through AHP(Al Khalil 2002),
TOPSIS (Mostafavi and Karamouz 2010), and the triangu­
lar fuzzy number method. However, these methods are
still based on the modification of the personal prefer­
ences of experts, and the results obtained still do not
objectively reflect the actual project, making it difficult to
find any correlation between factors. It is thus necessary
to establish a recognition method that excludes
815
subjective judgment to the extent possible. The process-
based modeling method seems to be a feasible
approach. This involves identifying the relevant factors
by plotting various activities and required functions in the
planning, design, construction and other processes of the
various delivery methods. The element requirements
based on the objective activity function requirements
appear to minimize subjective judgment.
23.4. More detailed project scenarios
Each project needs to identify its own suitable selec­
tion criteria and then settle on the most appropriate
PDM. The diversification of research perspectives can
enrich the criteria and the knowledge domain of PDMs.
As mentioned, the project category is an important
selection factor. The considerations regarding different
sorts of projects may differ; however, there are few
studies that shed light on the requirements of different
types of projects, with some exceptions:
(Demetracopoulou, O’Brien, and Khwaja 2020; Lee,
Jallan, and Ashuri 2020; Noorzai 2020; D. Q. Tran and
Molenaar 2014) on US transportation engineering, and
(Marzouk and Elmesteckawi 2015) on electric power
plants.
Subsequent research should continue to investigate
the project delivery requirements of specific types of
construction projects, such as public buildings,
bridges, water utilities, energy, and other types of
projects. A further area that needs to be investigated
is unconventional construction. In some special situa­
tions, such as post-disaster reconstruction, most pro­
ject constraints and conditions, such as cost and time
constraints, owner needs, and external market condi­
tions, are largely disrupted from the norm. Here, the
emergency will greatly skew the number, weight, and
mutual influence of delivery method criteria. Decision-
makers should consider some changes in require­
ments, such as completing the project more quickly
without reducing quality as the primary consideration;
whether the project delivery method is flexible enough
to deal with various emergencies in construction.
23.5. The influence of factors on the performance
of PDM
The research of the factors in the list that influence the
performance of the PDM can help understand and
make the decision. The research on the influence
mechanism of factors on performance will help deci­
sion-makers decide whether to adopt the factors and
their weights. Some existing research focuses on some
of the more critical factors in the list. For example, Liu
et al. discussed the influence of owner characteristics
(Liu et al. 2015; Xia et al. 2013). Others (Liu et al. 2016)
and (Liu et al. 2019) discuss the characteristics of the
project and the impact of the external environment
816 Q. ZHONG ET AL.
separately. However, it seems that the influence and
mechanism of some factors that have not received
traditional attention should also be studied in depth.
For example, the project execution organization often
must consider the opinions of the community when
working. In the highly integrated project delivery
method, the professional departments of the project
can quickly, accurately, and comprehensively share
these opinions, reduce the deviation and delay caused
by the transmission of information, and improve the
project’s efficiency. However, how to effectively trans­
mit this information to various professional depart­
ments and adjust project organization behaviors
were not discussed in depth. An in-depth and detailed
discussion of the factors affecting project delivery
methods and mechanisms will help reflect the differ­
ences in PDM choices more fully.
24. Limitations and Recommendations for
Future Research
This study attempts to establish an auxiliary tool to
understand PDM selection factors, so only statistical
analysis of PDM selection factors in mainstream litera­
ture is carried out. After establishing a list, decision
makers in new fields and new types of projects can
extract factors suitable for the project, thereby simplify­
ing the PDM decision-making process and reducing
errors caused by improper PDM. At the same time, it is
an initial effort of a series of studies on project delivery
in a specific environment, including selecting project
delivery methods under complex conditions such as
emergency conditions and post-disaster reconstruction.
Also, the research provides decision-makers with
another perspective; that is, appropriate PDM should be
designed based on these factors instead of choosing
from existing PDMs. As the complexity of the project
increases, the existing PDM contract structure may be
incompatible with the project operation process.
Therefore, designing rather than choosing PDM may be
a better alternative.
Some issues need to be discussed in-depth in future
research, including exploring the relationship between
elements, developing new decision-making methods,
establishing suitable selection models, and discussing
the mechanism and transmission path of PDM and
project performance.
25. Conclusion
No single Project Delivery System is appropriate for
all projects (Gordon 1994; Love et al. 1998; Miller
et al. 2000; Ibbs et al. 2003; Gransberg et al. 2006;
Touran et al. 2011; Tran et al. 2013; Tran and
Molenaar 2015). Similarly, there is no best delivery
method, only the most suitable delivery method.
Proper PDMs will directly affect the effectiveness
of the organizational arrangements and resource
allocation of owners and contractors, which in turn
will affect the success of the project. Therefore, it is
necessary to carefully select the appropriate PDM at
the outset of the project. The PDM needs to deter­
mine the selection criteria for the delivery method
appropriately. Not all selection factors are suitable
for all projects, but establishing a list of selection
criteria for PDMs helps understand the project sta­
tus more clearly, and optimize the selection process.
This paper provides a detailed review of the factors
considered in the selection of PDMs. Through
a literature review, a series of general factors are
summarized, including time, cost, quality, risk, pro­
ject scope, owner’s issues, contractor’s issues,
resource availability and quality, external market
factors, and corresponding sub-criteria. Future
research can select and empower common criteria
for specific projects and environments. In addition,
the quantification of criteria still needs further
investigation. Determining the criteria that affect
PDM selection in different project types and scenar­
ios will facilitate optimizing PDM selection, which is
expected to increase the success rate of project
delivery.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China [71971147].
ORCID
Martek Igor http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6573-1291
References
Al Khalil, M. I. 2002. “Selecting the Appropriate Project
Delivery Method Using AHP.” International Journal of
Project Management 20 (6): 469–474. doi:10.1016/S0263-
7863(01)00032-1.
Alhazmi, T., and R. McCaffer. 2000. “Project Procurement
System Selection Model.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 126 (3): 176–184.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:3(176).
Alleman, D., A. Antoine, D. Papajohn, and K. Molenaar (2017).
“Desired versus Realized Benefits of Alternative Contracting
Methods on Extreme Value Highway Projects.” Proceedings
of the Ninth International Structural Engineering and
Construction Conference, Valencia, Spain, July 24-July 29,
2017.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
An, X. W., Z. F. Wang, H. M. Li, and J. Y. Ding. 2018. “Project
Delivery System Selection with Interval-Valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set Group Decision-Making Method.”
Group Decision and Negotiation 27 (4): 689–707.
doi:10.1007/s10726-018-9581-y.
Bølviken, T., J. Rooke, and L. Koskela (2014). “The Wastes of
Production in construction–A TFV Based Taxonomy.” Paper
presented at the Proc. 22nd Ann. Conf. of the Int’l Group
for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway.
Chau, K. W. 1997. “The Ranking of Construction Management
Journals.” Construction Management & Economics 15 (4):
387-398.
Chen, Y. Q., J. Y. Liu, B. Li, and B. Lin. 2011. “Project Delivery
System Selection of Construction Projects in China.” Expert
Systems with Applications 38 (5): 5456–5462. doi:10.1016/j.
eswa.2010.10.008.
Demetracopoulou, V., W. J. O’Brien, and N. Khwaja. 2020.
“Lessons Learned from Selection of Project Delivery
Methods in Highway Projects: The Texas Experience.”
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in
Engineering and Construction 12(1. doi:10.1061/(asce)
la.1943-4170.0000340.
Diao, C. Y., Y. J. Dong, and Q. B. Cui. 2018. “Project Delivery
Selection: Framework and Application in the Utility
Industry.” In Construction Research Congress 2018 (pp.
171-179). New Orleans, Louisiana.
Ding, X., Z. H. Sheng, J. G. Du, and Q. Li. 2014. “Computational
Experiment Study on Selection Mechanism of Project
Delivery Method Based on Complex Factors.”
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2014: 1–8.
doi:10.1155/2014/701652.
Ding, J. Y., N. Wang, and L. C. Hu. 2018. “Framework for
Designing Project Delivery and Contract Strategy in
Chinese Construction Industry Based on Value-Added
Analysis.” Advances in Civil Engineering 2018: 1–14.
doi:10.1155/2018/5810357.
Dorsey, R. W. 1997. “Project Delivery Systems for Building
Construction: Associated General Contractors of America.”
Associated General Contractors of America, Washington,
DC.
Gordon, C. M. 1994. “Choosing Appropriate Construction
Contracting Method.” Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 120 (1): 196–210. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(1994)120:1(196).
Hashem, M., M. S. Mehany, G. Bashettiyavar, B. Esmaeili, and
G. Gad. 2018. “Claims and Project Performance between
Traditional and Alternative Project Delivery Methods.”
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in
Engineering and Construction 10 (3): 04518017.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000266.
Hosseini, A., O. Laedre, B. Andersen, O. Torp, N. Olsson, and
J. Lohne (2016). “Selection Criteria for Delivery Methods
for Infrastructure Projects.” In A. Serpell and X. Ferrada
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Ipma World Congress
Wc2015 (Vol. 226, pp. 260–268).
Jimoh, R. A., L. O. Oyewobi, and N. O. Aliu. 2016.
“Procurement Selection Criteria for Projects in the Public
Sector: Evidence from Nigeria.” Independent Journal of
Management & Production 7 (4): 1096–1114.
doi:10.14807/ijmp.v7i4.481.
Ke, Y., S. Wang, A. P. Chan, and E. Cheung. 2009. “Research
Trend of Public-private Partnership in Construction
Journals.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 135 (10): 1076-1086.
817
Khwaja, N., W. J. O’Brien, M. Martinez, B. Sankaran, J. T. O’Connor,
and W. Hale. 2018. “Innovations in Project Delivery Method
Selection Approach in the Texas Department of
Transportation.” Journal of Management in Engineering
34 (6). doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000645.
Konchar, M., and V. Sanvido. 1998. “Comparison of US Project
Delivery Systems.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 124 (6): 435–444. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1998)124:6(435).
Koskela, L. 1992. Application of the New Production Philosophy
to Construction. Vol. 72. Citeseer. Stanford: Stanford
university.
Koskela, L. 2000. An Exploration Towards a Production Theory
and Its Application to Construction. VTT Technical Research
Centre of Finland, Espoo.
Kumaraswamy, M. M., and S. M. Dissanayaka. 2001.
“Developing a Decision Support System for Building
Project Procurement.” Building and Environment 36 (3):
337–349. doi:10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00011-1.
Lee, J. H., Y. Jallan, and B. Ashuri. 2020. “Key Issues and
Differences in Practical Components of Quality
Management in Design-Build Highway Projects.” Journal of
Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and
Construction 12 (1). doi:10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000334.
Li, H. M., K. L. Qin, and P. Li. 2015. “Selection of Project
Delivery Approach with Unascertained Model.”
Kybernetes 44 (2): 238–252. doi:10.1108/k-01-2014-
0012.
Li, H. M., L. M. Su, Y. C. Cao, and L. L. Lv. 2019. “A Pythagorean
Fuzzy TOPSIS Method Based on Similarity Measure and Its
Application to Project Delivery System Selection.” Journal
of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 37 (5): 7059–7071.
doi:10.3233/jifs-181690.
Liu, B. S., T. F. Huo, Y. Liang, Y. Sun, and X. Hu. 2016. “Key
Factors of Project Characteristics Affecting Project Delivery
System Decision Making in the Chinese Construction
Industry: Case Study Using Chinese Data Based on Rough
Set Theory.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice 142 (4): 05016003. doi:10.1061/
(asce)ei.1943-5541.0000278.
Liu, B. S., T. F. Huo, Q. P. Shen, Z. Y. Yang, J. N. Meng, and B. Xue.
2015. “Which Owner Characteristics are Key Factors
Affecting Project Delivery System Decision Making?
Empirical Analysis Based on the Rough Set Theory.”
Journal of Management in Engineering 31 (4): 05014018.
doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000298.
Liu, B. S., B. Xue, T. F. Huo, G. Shen, and M. Q. Fu. 2019. “Project
External Environmental Factors Affecting Project Delivery
Systems Selection.” Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 25 (3): 276–286. doi:10.3846/jcem.2019.7460.
Lopez, R., D. Mascione, and H. J. X. Liu. 2017. “Management of
Issues in the Delivery of Airport Infrastructure within
Western Australia.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Management Procurement and Law 170 (5):
207–217. doi:10.1680/jmapl.17.00038.
Luu, D. T., S. T. Ng, and S. E. Chen. 2003. Parameters Governing
the Selection of Procurement System–an Empirical Survey.
Construction and Architectural Management. Engineering ,
Construction and Architectural Management, 10 (3): 209-218.
Luu, D. T., S. T. Ng, and S. E. Chen. 2005. “Formulating
Procurement Selection Criteria through Case-based
Reasoning Approach.” Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering 19 (3): 269–276. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801­
(2005)19:3(269).
818 Q. ZHONG ET AL.
Mafakheri, F., L. Dai, D. Slezak, and F. Nasiri. 2007. “Project
Delivery System Selection under Uncertainty: Multicriteria
Multilevel Decision Aid Model.” Journal of Management in
Engineering 23 (4): 200–206. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X
(2007)23:4(200).
Mahdi, I. M., and K. Alreshaid. 2005. “Decision Support System
for Selecting the Proper Project Delivery Method Using
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).” International Journal
of Project Management 23 (7): 564–572. doi:10.1016/j.
ijproman.2005.05.007.
Marzouk, M., and L. Elmesteckawi. 2015. “Analyzing
Procurement Route Selection for Electric Power Plants
Projects Using SMART.” Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 21 (7): 912–922. doi:10.3846/
13923730.2014.971131.
Molenaar, K., and B. Franz. 2018. Revisiting Project Delivery
Performance. Construction Industry Institute, University of
Colorado, University of Florida. Austin, TX: Charles Pankow
Foundation and Construction Industry Institute.
Moon, H., K. Cho, T. Hong, and C. Hyun. 2011. “Selection Model
for Delivery Methods for Multifamily-Housing Construction
Projects.” Journal of Management in Engineering 27 (2):
106–115. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000038.
Moore, D. (2000). “Selecting the Best Project Delivery
System.” https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/selecting-
best-project-delivery-system-8910
Mosley, J. C., and A. A. Bubshait. 2017. “Project Procurement
Systems for Mechanical, Electrical and Piping Projects in
Saudi Arabia an Empirical Assessment.” Engineering
Construction and Architectural Management 24 (6):
1004–1017. doi:10.1108/ecam-02-2016-0055.
Mostafavi, A., and M. Karamouz. 2010. “Selecting Appropriate
Project Delivery System: Fuzzy Approach with Risk
Analysis.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 136 (8): 923–930. doi:10.1061/(asce)
co.1943-7862.0000190.
Naoum, S. G. 1994. “Critical Analysis of Time and Cost of
Management and Traditional Contracts.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 120 (4):
687–705. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)
120:4(687).
NEDO. 1985. Think about Building: A Successful Business
Customer’s Guide to Using the Construction Industry
N. E. D. OrganizationEd. London: National Economic
Development Organization
Ng, S. T., D. T. Luu, S. E. Chen, and K. C. Lam. 2002. “Fuzzy
Membership Functions of Procurement Selection Criteria.”
Construction Management & Economics 20 (3): 285–296.
doi:10.1080/01446190210121288.
Noorzai, E. 2020. “Performance Analysis of Alternative
Contracting Methods for Highway Construction
Projects: Case Study for Iran.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems
26 (2): 04020003. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000528.
Oyetunji, A. A., and S. D. Anderson. 2006. “Relative Effectiveness
of Project Delivery and Contract Strategies.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 132 (1): 3–13.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:1(3).
PMI. 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (Pmbok Guide) Fifth Ed. Project Management
Institute, Inc.14 Campus Boulevard Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania 19073-3299 USA.
Qiang, M., Q. Wen, H. Jiang, and S. Yuan. 2015. “Factors Governing
Construction Project Delivery Selection: A Content Analysis.”
International Journal of Project Management 33 (8): 1780–1794.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.001.
Rwelamila, P. D., and C. Meyer. 1999. “Appropriate or Default
Project Procurement Systems?” Cost Engineering 41 (9): 40.
Sanvido, V., and M. Konchar (1998). “Project Delivery Systems:
CM at Risk, Design-Build,Design-bid-build”
Sanvido, V., and M. Konchar. 1999. Selecting Project Delivery
Systems. Pennsylvania, The Project Delivery Institute.
Songer, A. D., and K. R. Molenaar. 1996. “Selecting
Design-build: Public and Private Sector Owner Attitudes.”
Journal of Management in Engineering 12 (6): 47–53.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1996)12:6(47).
Su, L. M., H. M. Li, Y. C. Cao, and L. L. Lv. 2019. “Project Delivery
System Decision Making Using Pythagorean Fuzzy
TOPSIS.” Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics
30 (4): 461–471. doi:10.5755/j01.ee.30.4.22041.
Touran, A., D. D. Gransberg, K. R. Molenaar, and
K. Ghavamifar. 2011. “Selection of Project Delivery
Method in Transit: Drivers and Objectives.” Journal of
Management in Engineering 27 (1): 21–27. doi:10.1061/
(asce)me.1943-5479.0000027.
Touran, A., K. R. Molenaar, D. D. Gransberg, and K. Ghavamifar.
2009. “Decision Support System for Selection of Project
Delivery Method in Transit.” Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
2111 (1): 148–157. doi:10.3141/2111-17.
Tran, D. Q., C. M. Harper, K. R. Molenaar, N. F. Haddad, and
M. M. Scholfield. 2013. “Project Delivery Selection Matrix
for Highway Design and Construction.” Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 2347 (1): 3–10. doi:10.3141/2347-01.
Tran, D. Q., and K. R. Molenaar. 2014. “Impact of Risk on
Design-Build Selection for Highway Design and
Construction Projects.” Journal of Management in
Engineering 30 (2): 153–162. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-
5479.0000210.
Tran, D. Q., K. R. Molenaar, and L. F. Alarcon. 2016. “A Hybrid
Cross-Impact Approach to Predicting Cost Variance of
Project Delivery Decisions for Highways.” Journal of
Infrastructure Systems 22(1. doi:10.1061/(asce)is.1943-
555x.0000270.
Tuholski, S. J. 2008. Transformation, Flow, and Value
Constellations in AEC Projects. University of California,
Berkeley.
Xia, B., K. Molenaar, A. Chan, M. Skitmore, and J. Zuo.
2013. “Determining Optimal Proportion of Design in
Design-Build Request for Proposals.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 139 (6):
620–627. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000643.
Yuan, H., and L. Shen. 2011. “Rend of the Research on
Construction and Demolition Waste Management.” Waste
Management 31 (4): 670–679. doi:10.1016/j.
wasman.2010.10.030.
Zhao, X. J., L. Chen, W. Pan, and Q. C. Lu. 2017. “AHP-
ANP–Fuzzy Integral Integrated Network for Evaluating
Performance of Innovative Business Models for
Sustainable Building.” Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 143 (8): 04017054. doi:10.1061/(asce)
co.1943-7862.0001348.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 819

Appendix: The List of Selected Journals, Articles and Authors

Authors Year Journal Title

1 Al Khalil 2002 International journal of project Analyzing Procurement Route Selection for Electric Power Plants Projects
management Using SMART
2 Alhazmi and 2000 Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Procurement System Selection Model
McCaffer management
3 Alleman, Antoine 2017 Proc., Resilient Structures and Sustainable Desired Versus Realized Benefits of Alternative Contracting Methods on
et al. Construction Extreme Value Highway Projects
4 An, Wang et al. 2018 Group Decision and Negotiation Project Delivery System Selection with Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Set Group Decision-Making Method
5 Chen, Liu et al. 2011 Expert Systems with Applications Project Delivery System Selection of Construction Projects in China
6 Demetracopoulou, 2020 Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Lessons Learned from Selection of Project Delivery Methods in Highway
O’Brien et al. Resolution in Engineering and Projects: The Texas Experience
Construction
7 Diao, Dong et al. 2018 Construction Research Congress 2018: Project Delivery Selection: Framework and Application in the Utility
Infrastructure and Facility Industry
Management
8 Ding, Sheng et al. 2014 Mathematical Problems in Engineering Computational Experiment Study on Selection Mechanism of Project
Delivery Method Based on Complex Factors
9 Ding, Wang et al. 2018 Advances in Civil Engineering Framework for Designing Project Delivery and Contract Strategy in Chinese
Construction Industry Based on Value-Added Analysis
10 Gordon 1994 Journal of construction engineering and Choosing Appropriate Construction Contracting Method
management
11 Hosseini, Laedre 2016 Proceedings of the 29th Ipma World Selection Criteria for Delivery Methods for Infrastructure Projects
et al. Congress Wc2015
12 Jimoh, Oyewobi 2016 Independent Journal of Management & Procurement Selection Criteria for Projects in The Public Sector: Evidence
et al. Production from Nigeria
13 Khwaja, O’Brien 2018 Journal of Management in Engineering Innovations in Project Delivery Method Selection Approach in The Texas
et al. Department of Transportation
14 Konchar and 1998 Journal of construction engineering and Comparison of U.S. Project Delivery Systems
Sanvido management
15 Kumaraswamy and 2001 Building and Environment Developing a Decision Support System for Building Project Procurement
Dissanayaka
16 Lee, Jallan et al. 2020 Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Key Issues and Differences in Practical Components of Quality Management
Resolution in Engineering and in Design-Build Highway Projects
Construction
17 Liu, Huo et al. 2015 Journal of Management in Engineering A Group Decision-Making Aggregation Model for Contractor Selection in
Large Scale Construction Projects Based on Two-Stage Partial Least
Squares (Pls) Path Modeling
18 Liu, Huo et al. 2016 Journal of Professional Issues in Key Factors of Project Characteristics Affecting Project Delivery System
Engineering Education and Practice Decision Making in the Chinese Construction Industry: Case Study Using
Chinese Data Based on Rough Set Theory
19 Liu, Xue et al. 2019 Journal of Civil Engineering and Project External Environmental Factors Affecting Project Delivery Systems
Management Selection
20 Lopez, Mascione 2017 Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Management of Issues in the Delivery of Airport Infrastructure within
et al. Engineers-Management Procurement Western Australia
and Law
21 Luu, Ng et al. 2003 Engineering, Construction and Parameters Governing the Selection of Procurement System–an Empirical
Architectural Management Survey
22 Luu, Ng et al. 2005 Journal of computing in civil engineering Formulating Procurement Selection Criteria through Case-Based Reasoning
Approach
23 Mafakheri, Dai 2007 Journal of Management in Engineering Project Delivery System Selection under Uncertainty: Multicriteria
et al. Multilevel Decision Aid Model
24 Mahdi and 2005 International journal of project Decision Support System for Selecting the Proper Project Delivery Method
Alreshaid management Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
25 Marzouk and 2015 Journal of Civil Engineering and Analyzing Procurement Route Selection for Electric Power Plants Projects
Elmesteckawi Management Using Smart
26 Molenaar, Bogus 2004 Journal of Management in Engineering Design/Build for Water/Wastewater Facilities: State of The Industry Survey
et al. and Three Case Studies
27 Molenaar, Songer 1999 Journal of Management in Engineering Public-Sector Design/Build Evolution and Performance
et al.
28 Moon, Cho et al. 2011 Journal of Management in Engineering Selection Model for Delivery Methods for Multifamily-Housing Construction
Projects
29 Moore 2000 PMI Selecting the Best Project Delivery System
30 Mosley and 2017 Engineering Construction and Project Procurement Systems for Mechanical, Electrical and Piping Projects
Bubshait Architectural Management in Saudi Arabia an Empirical Assessment
31 Mostafavi and 2010 Journal of Construction Engineering and Selecting Appropriate Project Delivery System: Fuzzy Approach with Risk
Karamouz Management Analysis
(Continued)
820 Q. ZHONG ET AL.

(Continued).
Authors Year Journal Title
32 NEDO 1985 NEDO Think About Building: a Successful Business Customer’s Guide to Using the
Construction Industry
33 Ng, Luu et al. 2002 Construction Management & Economics Fuzzy Membership Functions of Procurement Selection Criteria
34 Noorzai 2020 Journal of Infrastructure Systems Performance Analysis of Alternative Contracting Methods for Highway
Construction Projects: Case Study for Iran
35 Oyetunji and 2006 Journal of construction engineering and Relative Effectiveness of Project Delivery and Contract Strategies
Anderson management
36 Park and Kwak 2017 International Journal of Project Design-Bid-Build (DBB) Vs. Design-Build (DB) in the U.S. Public
Management Transportation Projects: The Choice and Consequences
37 Qiang, Wen et al. 2015 International Journal of Project Factors Governing Construction Project Delivery Selection: a Content
Management Analysis
38 Songer and 1996 Journal of Management in Engineering Selecting Design-Build: Public and Private Sector Owner Attitudes
Molenaar
39 Su, Wang et al. 2019 Information Project Procurement Method Selection Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-
Making Method with Interval Neutrosophic Sets
40 Touran, Gransberg 2011 Journal of Management in Engineering Selection of Project Delivery Method in Transit: Drivers and Objectives
et al.
41 Tran and Molenaar 2014 Journal of Management in Engineering Impact of Risk on Design-Build Selection for Highway Design and
Construction Projects
42 Tran, Harper et al. 2013 Transportation research record Project Delivery Selection Matrix for Highway Design and Construction
43 Tran, Molenaar 2016 Journal of Infrastructure Systems A Hybrid Cross-Impact Approach to Predicting Cost Variance of Project
et al. Delivery Decisions for Highways
44 Xia and Chan 2012 Journal of Construction Engineering and Identification of Selection Criteria for Operational Variations of the Design-
Management Build System: a Delphi Study in China
45 Xia, Molenaar et al. 2013 Journal of Civil Engineering and Determining Optimal Proportion of Design in Design-Build Request for
Management Proposals