International conference on construction engineering and project management (국제학술발표논문집)

  • 2024.07a
  • /
  • Pages.753-760
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2508-9048(eISSN)
Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management (한국건설관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quality-based performance comparison of design-build and design-bid-build project delivery methods for warehouses and self-storage facilities

  • Vivek SHARMA (Nieri Department of Construction, Development and Planning, Clemson University) ;
  • Vijaya Ravi Prasanth REDDI (Nieri Department of Construction, Development and Planning, Clemson University) ;
  • Abdul Sohail MOHAMMED (Nieri Department of Construction, Development and Planning, Clemson University) ;
  • Jong Han YOON (Nieri Department of Construction, Development and Planning, Clemson University)
  • Published : 2024.07.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Warehouses and Self-Storage facilities are essential for e-commerce operations, providing inventory, distribution, and delivery space. As per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of warehousing and storage businesses in the United States increased from 15,152 in 2010 to 20,002 in 2021, showing continuous growth over the decade. Given the recent surge, there is a need to better understand the impact of these delivery methods on the quality metrics of these facilities. This study aims to contrast the measure of quantitative quality performance of design-build (DB) versus traditional design-bid-build (DBB) project delivery methods (PDM) for warehouses and self-storage facilities. This research conducted a literature review to document quality metrics to compare DBB and DB on project performance. ANOVA was conducted to compare the significant difference between the means to compare the performance between delivery methods and project outcomes across these critical areas. With these insights, owners can make informed strategic decisions about selecting the optimal PDM for future storage facility projects based on their unique quality and scope management objectives.

Keywords

References

  1. T. Notteboom, F. Parola, G. Satta, M. Risitano, A taxonomy of logistics centres : overcoming conceptual ambiguity, Univ. Antwerpen 3 (2017) 276-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1231234. 
  2. S. Zhou, Y.Y. Gong, R. De Koster, Designing self-storage warehouses with customer choice, Int. J. Prod. Res. 7543 (2016) 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1158880. 
  3. F. Nemec, S. Lorincova, The Storage Area Market in the Particular Territory, 62 (2015) 131-138. https://doi.org/10.17818/NM/2015/SI8. 
  4. R. Accorsi, R. Manzini, F. Maranesi, A decision-support system for the design and management of warehousing systems, Comput. Ind. 65 (2014) 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2013.08.007. 
  5. V. Sanvido, M. Konchar, S. Moore, Comparison of project delivery systems, ASCE Constr. Congr. Proc. 124 (1997) 573-580. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1998)124:6(435). 
  6. T. Wegelius-Lehtonen, Performance measurement in construction logistics, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 69 (2001) 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00034-7. 
  7. H. Nasir, C.T. Haas, J.H. Rankin, A.R. Fayek, D. Forgues, J. Ruwanpura, Development and implementation of a benchmarking and metrics program for construction performance and productivity improvement, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 39 (2012) 957-967. https://doi.org/10.1139/L2012-030. 
  8. W.D. Etgar Durio, Determining Key Performance Indicators With Balanced, J. Econ. Bus. UBS 12 (2023) 761-776.
  9. A. Hosseini, O. Laedre, B. Andersen, O. Torp, N. Olsson, J. Lohne, Selection criteria for delivery methods for infrastructure projects, Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 226 (2016) 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.187. 
  10. F. Nasirzadeh, N. Naderpajouh, A. Afshar, A. Etesami, FUZZY APPROACH TO PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM, Int. Conf. Constr. Eng. Proj. Manag. 03 (2007) 662-671. 
  11. F. Yean, Y. Ling, S.L. Chan, E. Chong, L.P. Ee, Predicting Performance of Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Projects, 130 (2004) 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733- 9364(2004)130. 
  12. N.M. Oluvic, N.D. Ludlow, COMPARISON OF DESIGN-BUILD TO DESIGN-BID- BUILD AS A PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD, Nav. Postgrad. Sch. Monterey, Calif. (2001). 
  13. R.E. Minchin, X. Li, R.R. Issa, G.G. Vargas, Comparison of Cost and Time Performance of Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Delivery Systems in Florida, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 139 (2013) 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000746. 
  14. H. Moon, K. Kim, H.-S. Lee, M. Park, T.P. Williams, B. Son, J.-Y. Chun, Cost Performance Comparison of Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build for Building and Civil Projects Using Mediation Analysis, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 146 (2020) 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001873. 
  15. J. Park, Y.H. Kwak, Design-Bid-Build (DBB) vs. Design-Build (DB) in the U.S. public transportation projects: The choice and consequences, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (2017) 280-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.013. 
  16. P.P. Shrestha, J.D. Fernane, Performance of Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Projects for Public Universities, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 143 (2017) 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001241. 
  17. J. Sullivan, M. El Asmar, J. Chalhoub, H. Obeid, Two Decades of Performance Comparisons for Design-Build, Construction Manager at Risk, and Design-Bid-Build: Quantitative Analysis of the State of Knowledge on Project Cost, Schedule, and Quality, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 143 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001282. 
  18. T. Yu, G.Q. Shen, Q. Shi, Comparing the Performance Quality of Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build Delivery Methods, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 143 (2017) 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001262. 
  19. S. Yun, J. Choi, D.P. De Oliveira, S.P. Mulva, Development of performance metrics for phase-based capital project benchmarking, JPMA 34 (2016) 389-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.12.004. 
  20. R. Khalef, S.M. Asce, I.H. El-adaway, F. Asce, Advancing Airport Project Delivery : A Comparison of Design - Build and Traditional Methods in Terms of Schedule and Cost Performance, 39 (2023) 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-5490. 
  21. H.S. Cha, C.K. Kim, Quantitative Approach for Project Performance Measurement on Building Construction in South Korea, 15 (2011) 1319-1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-011-1323-5. 
  22. V. Sharma, C.H. Caldas, S.P. Mulva, Development of metrics and an external benchmarking program for healthcare facilities, Int. J. Constr. Manag. 21 (2021) 615-630. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1573490. 
  23. A. Peressini, J. Bristow, M. Motahari, M. Karakouzian, U. Engineering, S. Branch, P. Drive, A Comparative Analysis of Integrated Project Delivery in Construction Versus Traditional Methods, 9th Int. Conf. Constr. Eng. Proj. Manag. (2022) 669-677. 
  24. G.C. Migliaccio, M. Asce, Empirical Comparison of Design / Build and Design / Bid / Build Project Delivery Methods, 135 (2009) 579-587. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000017. 
  25. M. El Asmar, D. Ph, M. Asce, A.S. Hanna, D. Ph, F. Asce, W. Loh, D. Ph, Quantifying Performance for the Integrated Project Delivery System as Compared to Established Delivery Systems, 139 (2013) 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000744.