Constructability Reviews Utilization Practices for Traditional and Alternative Project Delivery Methods Across State Transportation Agencies

State Transportation Agencies (STAs) recognized that to enhance the quality of construction documents, a review process must be incorporated into project planning, design, and procurement to evaluate projects for constructability. The benefits promised by constructability reviews (CRs) encouraged STAs to adopt it as part of their operations. This approach soon evolved into a structured process, recognized by researchers and practitioners as, the constructability review process (CRP). A significant component to the CRP success is to involve experienced construction personnel in CRs during the design phase; a major limitation of the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) delivery method. To overcome this limitation, more emphasis is being placed towards alternative project delivery methods (APDMs). As such, design–build (DB) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) are among the APDMs most utilized by STAs to deliver transportation projects. Although extensive research has investigated CRs under DBB projects, research on CRs implementation under APDMs is remarkably absent. This study examines CRs utilization and staffing practices adopted by STAs across DBB, DB, and CM/GC projects. The results of this study were drawn utilizing data collected through a national survey questionnaire and interviews with selected STAs. The study found that CRs are initiated and implemented at proportionally similar phases across DBB, DB, and CM/GC projects. Investigation of staffing needs revealed that although the agency holds the executive role in implementation of CRs on DBB projects, their role shifts on DB projects to become more administrative. The agency continues to be involved in CRs under CM/GC projects, along with their allocated design consultant, in conjunction with the GC. The results of this study are anticipated to provide STAs with guidance for CRs utilization on DBB, DB and CM/GC projects.

Post-Disaster Infrastructure Delivery for Resilience

As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of disasters and associated infrastructure damage, Alternative Project Delivery Methods are well positioned to enable innovative contracting and partnering methods for designing and delivering adaptation solutions that are more time- and cost-effective. However, where conventional “build-back-as-before” post-disaster reconstruction occurs, communities remain vulnerable to future disasters of similar or greater magnitude. In this conceptual paper, we draw on a variety of literature and emergent practices to present how such alternative delivery methods of reconstruction projects can systematically integrate “build-back-better” and introduce more resilient infrastructure outcomes. Considering existing knowledge regarding infrastructure resilience, post-disaster reconstruction and project delivery methods, we consider the resilience regimes of rebound, robustness, graceful extensibility, and sustained adaptability to present the potential for alternative project delivery methods to improve the agility and flexibility of infrastructure against future climate-related and other hazards. We discuss the criticality of continued pursuit of stakeholder engagement to support further improvements to project delivery methods, enabling new opportunities for engaging with a broader set of stakeholders, and for stakeholders to contribute new knowledge and insights to the design process. We conclude the significant potential for such methods to enable resilient infrastructure outcomes, through prioritizing resilience alongside time and cost. We also present a visual schematic in the form of a framework for enabling post-disaster infrastructure delivery for resilience outcomes, across different scales and timeframes of reconstruction. The findings have immediate implications for agencies managing disaster recovery efforts, offering decision-support for improving the adaptive capacity of infrastructure, the services they deliver, and capacities of the communities that rely on them.

Best practices of organizational change for adopting alternative project delivery methods in the AEC industry

PurposeAlthough numerous studies have examined alternative project delivery methods (APDMs), most of these studies have focused on the relationship between these methods and improved project performance. Limited research identifies how to successfully add these methods within architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) organizations. The purpose of this paper is to identifying organizational change management (OCM) practices that, when effectively executed, lead to increased success rates of adopting APDMs in owner AEC organizations.Design/methodology/approachSeven OCM practices were identified through a comprehensive literature review. Then, through a survey of 140 individuals at 98 AEC organizations, the relationships between OCM practices and organizational adoption of APDMs were established.FindingsThe findings indicate that OCM practices with the strongest relationship to successful APDM adoption are realistic timeframe, effective change agents, workloads adjustments, senior-leadership commitment and sufficient change-related training.Practical implicationsAdopting APDMs can be extremely difficult and requires significant organizational change efforts to ensure the change is a success. Organizations that are implementing APDMs for the first time should consider applying the OCM practices that this study identifies as most related to successful APDM adoption.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by identifying the OCM practices that are most significantly associated with successfully adopting APDMs.