Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Integrated Framework for Selecting the Optimum Project Delivery System in Post-conflict Construction Projects

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The growing complexity and dynamism of construction projects have ultimately elevated the importance of project delivery systems. In addition, working in post-conflict environment has further magnified their significance. The literature review lacks a synthesized framework that is designed for the selection of project delivery systems in post-conflict construction projects. Accordingly, the overarching objective of this research is to develop a well-rounded framework for structured selection of the most suitable project delivery system (PDS) in post-conflict construction projects. The developed model encompasses two approaches for PDS selection, namely individual based and consensus based. These approaches differ in their modality of judgment elicitation and score aggregation but coincide in the output which is the suitability index for the PDS options. The constructed suitability index simulates both the relative importance weights of the most significant PDS factors alongside their relative effectiveness values. In this regard, it harnesses analytical network process to compute the relative importance weights of the PDS selection factors. The first approach is predicated on individual assessment of the parameters leading to calculation of the suitability indices. This approach applies Monte Carlo simulation to define a range for the suitability indices. The second approach, however, is hinged upon consensus-based assessment of the components of the suitability index through conferencing workshops. Comparative analysis demonstrated that construction manager at risk is the most attractive PDS option in post-conflict Afghanistan. In addition, design-build is a more suitable PDS option than design-bid-build for construction of health/educational and office/government projects in post-conflict Afghanistan. It is also manifested that project cost, security constraint and political impact, availability of experienced contractors sustain the highest significance on the suitability index in health and educational buildings. Furthermore, availability of resources and material, agency’s in-house capacity, and availability of experienced contractors sustain the most paramount implication on the suitability index of construction manager at risk in office and government projects. It is anticipated that the developed integrated model could aid development agencies in selecting the most appropriate project delivery system that is best suited to their projects on the basis of project objectives, priorities, and location conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References s

  1. Kasturi SP, Gransberg DD (2002) Time management-A design-build builder’s perspective. Cost Engineering 44(9):16–25

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davies, P. T. (2004). Is evidence-based government possible? Jerry lee lecture, presented at the Fourth Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington DC. Available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.545.364&rep=rep1&type=pdf Accessed 20 Dec 2020

  3. Mesa HA, Molenaar KR, Alarcón LF (2019) Comparative analysis between integrated project delivery and lean project delivery. Int J Project Manage 37(3):395–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ebrahimi G, Dowlatabadi H (2019) Perceived challenges in implementing integrated project delivery (IPD) insights from stakeholders in the US and Canada for a path forward. Int J Const Edu Res. 15(4):291–314

    Google Scholar 

  5. Engebø A, Lædre O, Young B, Larssen PF, Lohne J, Klakegg OJ (2020) Collaborative project delivery methods: a scoping review. J Civ Eng Manag 26(3):278–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams T, Vo H, Samset K, Edkins A (2019) The front-end of projects: a systematic literature review and structuring. Prod Plan Cont 30(14):1137–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nanthagopan Y, Williams NL (2021) Project managing in post-conflict environments: an exploration of the resource profiles of Sri Lankan non-governmental organizations involved in development projects. Int J Manag Proj Bus 14(7):1555–1582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Amarkhil Q, Elwakil E (2021) Constraints and opportunities facing construction organization in post-conflict condition in Afghanistan. J Financ Manag Prop Constr 26(3):301–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Feghaly J, El Asmar M, Ariaratnam ST (2021) A comparison of project delivery method performance for water infrastructure capital projects. Can J Civ Eng 48(6):691–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ibrahim MW, Hanna A, Kievet D (2020) Quantitative comparison of project performance between project delivery systems. J Manag Eng 36(6):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moon H, Kim K, Lee H-S, Park M, Williams TP, Son B, Chun J-Y (2020) Cost performance comparison of design-build and design-bid-build for building and civil projects using mediation analysis. J Constr Eng Manag 146(9):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Suratkon A, Yunus R, Deraman R (2020) Characteristics of procurement methods in Malaysia—comparing design-bid-build, design-build and construction management. Int J Sustain Const Eng Technol 11(3):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cho N, El Asmar M, Underwood S, Kamarianakis Y (2020) Long-term performance benefits of the design-build delivery method applied to road pavement projects in the US KSCE. J Civil Eng. 24(4):1049–1059

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chakra H, Ashi A (2019) Comparative analysis of design/build and design/bid/build project delivery systems in Lebanon. J Indust Eng Int 15:147–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tran DQ, Diraviam G, Minchin RE (2018) Performance of highway design-bid-build and design-build projects by work types. J Constr Eng Manag 144(2):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Minchin RE Jr, Li X, Issa RR, Vargas GG (2013) Comparison of cost and time performance of design-build and design-bid-build delivery systems in florida. J Constr Eng Manag 139(10):1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shrestha PP, O’Connor JT, Gibson GE (2012) Performance comparison of large design-build and design-bid-build highway projects. J Constr Eng Manag 138(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bowers DD, (2001). Integrated Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Options. M.SC. Thesis, Texas A & M University, United States of America

  19. Dragisa S, Bojan D, Mira D (2013) Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: a case of ranking serbian banks. Serb J Manag 8(2):213–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sodangi M, Salman A (2022) AHP-DEMATEL modelling of consultant related delay factors affecting sustainable housing construction in Saudi Arabia. Int J Const Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2022.2106038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Soni A, Chakraborty S, Kumar Das P, Kumar Saha A (2022) Materials selection of reinforced sustainable composites by recycling waste plastics and agro-waste: An integrated multi-criteria decision making approach. Constr Build Mater 348:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Balali A, Valipour A, Edwards R, Moehler R (2021) Ranking effective risks on human resources threats in natural gas supply projects using ANP-COPRAS method: Case study of Shiraz. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 208:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Naik MG, Kishore R, Dehmourdi SAM (2021) Modeling a multi-criteria decision support system for prequalification assessment of construction contractors using critic and Edas models. Operat Res Eng Sci Theory Appl 4(2):79–101

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shahpari M, Saradj FM, Pishvaee MS, Piri S (2020) Assessing the productivity of prefabricated and in-situ construction systems using hybrid multi-criteria decision making method. J Build Eng 27:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dehdasht G, Salim Ferwati M, Zin RM, Abidin NZ (2020) A hybrid approach using entropy and TOPSIS to select key drivers for a successful and sustainable lean construction implementation. PLoS ONE 15:1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Slebi-Acevedo CJ, Silva-Rojas IM, Lastra-González P, Pascual-Muñoz P, Castro-Fresno D (2020) Multiple-response optimization of open graded friction course reinforced with fibers through CRITIC-WASPAS based on Taguchi methodology. Constr Build Mater 233:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ozkaya G, Erdin C (2020) Evaluation of smart and sustainable cities through a hybrid MCDM approach based on ANP and TOPSIS technique. Heliyon 6(10):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moghadas M, Asadzadeh A, Vafeidis A, Fekete A, Kötter T (2019) A multi-criteria approach for assessing urban flood resilience in Tehran. Iran Int J Dis Risk Red 35:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  29. Morkunaite Z, Podvezko V, Zavadskas EK, Bausys R (2019) Contractor selection for renovation of cultural heritage buildings by PROMETHEE method. Arch Civil Mechan Eng 19(4):1056–1071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zolfani S, Mosharafiandehkordi S, Kutut V (2019) A pre-planning for hotel locating according to the sustainability perspective based on bwm-waspas approach. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 23(6):405–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nguyen HT, Hadikusumo BHW (2018) Human resource related factors and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) project success. J Financ Manag Prop Constr 23(1):24–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Park M, Ji S-H, Lee H-S, Kim W (2009) Strategies for design-build in korea using system dynamics modeling. J Constr Eng Manag 135(11):1125–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sulakatko V, Vogdt FU (2018) Construction process technical impact factors on degradation of the external thermal insulation composite system. Sustainability 10(11):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ogbeifun E, Mbohwa C, Pretorius JHC (2017) Achieving consensus devoid of complicity: adopting the Delphi technique. Int J Product Perform Manag 66(6):766–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Namin FN, Askari HR, Ramesh S, Mousavi Hassani SM, Khanmohammadi E, Ebrahimi H (2019) Application of ANP network analysis process method in SWOT model. Civil Eng J 5(2):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zare M, Pahl C, Rahnama H, Nilashi M, Mardani A, Ibrahim O, Ahmadi H (2016) Multi-criteria decision making approach in E-learning: a systematic review and classification. Appl Soft Comput 45:108–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yücelgazi F, Yitmen İ (2020) An ANP model for risk response assessment in large scale bridge projects. Civ Eng Environ Syst 37(1–2):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mahmoudkelaye S, Taghizade Azari K, Pourvaziri M, Asadian E (2018) Sustainable material selection for building enclosure through ANP method. Case Studies Const Mater 9:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  39. Demirkesen S, Bayhan HG (2020) A lean implementation success model for the construction industry. Eng Manag J 32(3):219–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Aşchilean I, Giurca I (2018) Choosing a water distribution pipe rehabilitation solution using the analytical network process method. Water 10(4):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Das BP, Das S, Siddagangaiah AK (2021) Probabilistic modeling of fatigue damage in asphalt mixture. Constr Build Mater 269:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Koulinas GK, Xanthopoulos AS, Tsilipiras TT, Koulouriotis DE (2020) Schedule delay risk analysis in construction projects with a simulation-based expert system. Buildings 10(8):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Alangi SH, Nozhati S, Vazirizade SM (2018) Critical reliability slip surface in soil slope stability analysis using Monte Carlo simulation method. Int J Struct Int 9(2):233–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rizwan M, Guo S, Xiong F, Yin J (2018) Evaluation of various probability distributions for deriving design flood featuring right-tail events in Pakistan. Water 10(11):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Saaty TL (1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. RWS publications, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  46. Faisal MN, Khan S, Farooqi IH (2011) An analytic process model for selection of infectious waste management contractors. Int J Math Operat Res 3(4):359–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yu R, Tzeng GH (2006) A soft computing method for multi-criteria decision making with dependence and feedback. Appl Math Comput 180(1):63–75

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Saaty TL (2004) Decision making—the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13(1):1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yitmen I, Al-Musaed A, Yücelgazi F (2021) ANP model for evaluating the performance of adaptive façade systems in complex commercial buildings. Engineering 11:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sakthivel G, Sivakumar R, Ilangkumaran M, Ikua BW (2016) Selection of optimum fish oil fuel blend to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in an IC engine—A hybrid multiple criteria decision aid approach. Int J Green Energy 13(14):1517–1533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Cheng EWL, Li H, Yu L (2005) The analytic network process (ANP) approach to location selection: A shopping mall illustration. Constr Innov 5(2):83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Saaty TL (1980) Analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Cegan JC, Filion AM, Keisler JM, Linkov I (2017) Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: literature review. Environm Systems Dec 37(2):123–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Liu J, Liu P, Liu SF, Zhou XZ, Zhang T (2015) A study of decision process in MCDM problems with large number of criteria. Int Trans Oper Res 22(2):237–264

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Serugga J, Kagioglou M, Tzortzopolous P (2020) A utilitarian decision-making approach for front end design-a systematic literature review. Buildings 10(2):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ossadnik W, Schinke S, Kaspar RH (2016) Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: a comparative analysis. Group Decis Negot 25(2):421–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Teppan EC, Felfernig A (2012) Minimization of decoy effects in recommender result sets. Web Intel Agent Syst 10(4):385–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Stipanovic I, Bukhsh ZA, Reale C, Gavin K (2021) A multiobjective decision-making model for risk-based maintenance scheduling of railway earthworks. Appl Sci 11(3):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. D’Agostino D, Parker D, Melià P (2019) Environmental and economic implications of energy efficiency in new residential buildings: a multi-criteria selection approach. Energ Strat Rev 26:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  60. Alshamrani O, Alshibani A, Alogaili M (2018) Analytic hierarchy process & multi attribute utility theory based approach for the selection of lighting systems in residential buildings: a case study. Buildings 8(6):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Charehzehi A, Chai CS, Md Yusof A, Chong HY, Loo SC (2017) Building information modeling in construction conflict management. Int J Eng Bus Manag 9:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Antoniou F, Aretoulis G (2019) A multi-criteria decision-making support system for choice of method of compensation for highway construction contractors in Greece. Int J Constr Manag 19(6):492–508

    Google Scholar 

  63. Asadi E, Shen Z, Zhou H, Salman A, Li Y (2020) Risk-informed multi-criteria decision framework for resilience, sustainability and energy analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. J Build Perform Simul 13(6):804–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Buildings, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Mahmood-Reza Pooyan & Abobakr Al-Sakkaf

  2. Department of Architecture and Environmental Planning, College of Engineering and Petroleum, Hadhramout University, 50512, Mukalla, Yemen

    Abobakr Al-Sakkaf

  3. Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, 12613, Egypt

    Eslam Mohammed Abdelkader

  4. Department of Building and Real Estate (BRE), Faculty of Construction and Environment (FCE), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Eslam Mohammed Abdelkader & Tarek Zayed

  5. Centre for Engineering in Society, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Govind Gopakumar

Authors
  1. Mahmood-Reza Pooyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abobakr Al-Sakkaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eslam Mohammed Abdelkader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tarek Zayed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Govind Gopakumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abobakr Al-Sakkaf.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pooyan, MR., Al-Sakkaf, A., Abdelkader, E.M. et al. An Integrated Framework for Selecting the Optimum Project Delivery System in Post-conflict Construction Projects. Int J Civ Eng 21, 1359–1384 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-023-00837-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-023-00837-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation