The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ
14,5

Benchmarking the performance

of design-build projects
Development of project success index

624

Edmond W.M. Lam, Albert P.C. Chan and Daniel W.M. Chan
Department of Building and Real Estate,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
Abstract
Purpose The paper aims to develop a project success index (PSI) to benchmark the performance of
design-build projects from a number of key performance indicators (KPIs).
Design/methodology/approach This research collected 92 responses from Design and Build
(D&B) project participants of the Hong Kong construction industry via ordinary postal mail. In
addition, a project success equation is formulated from the principal components analysis.
Findings D&B project participants suggests that time, cost, quality and functionality should be the
principal success criteria for D&B projects. A single index can also be computed from the project
success equation to apply different weightings to the respective KPI with different significance.
Practical implications The concept of success remains vague among project participants, which
makes it difficult to assess whether the performance of a project is a success or failure. The
development of PSI can quantify the success concept in a scientific manner.
Originality/value PSI indicates the success level of a construction project for benchmarking
purposes. It also enables project stakeholders to measure the success of a D&B project and to compare
the relative success level among different D&B projects in a scientific manner.
Keywords Project management, Benchmarking, Critical success factors, Construction industry,
Hong Kong
Paper type Research paper

Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Vol. 14 No. 5, 2007
pp. 624-638
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/14635770710819290

Introduction
A construction project is mostly initiated by the needs of the client. In order to satisfy
the clients requirements in terms of time, cost and quality, various procurement
methods are used to increase the chance of success for the complex sequence of
activities. The traditional design-bid-build method has been commonly used in
delivering construction projects for many decades. It has become the dominant method
for project delivery in Hong Kong and is still popularly used in the USA (Rowlinson,
1997; Friedlander, 1998). However, the extensive number of disputes and the growing
emphasis on clients requirements have brought to the need for other alternative
procurement systems (Ndekugri and Turner, 1994; Moore and Dainty, 2001).
The growing emphasis on meeting clients needs and improving project
performance has increased the use of fully integrated design-build (D&B) project
teams (Moore and Dainty, 2001). D&B integrates design and construction to overcome
some of the fragmentation in the US construction industry (Yates, 1995;
The authors gratefully acknowledge the respondents for their generous contributions to the
empirical survey and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for providing funding to support
this research effort.

Retherford, 1998). It has been extensively used in western countries for decades but it
has only been introduced to the East since the last 15 years. In Hong Kong, the use of a
D&B contract in the private sector is used only occasionally when compared with the
use in the public sector (Chan et al., 2001).
Benchmarking has emerged as a reaction to growing competitive pressures in
international markets, and the concept of benchmarking has become increasingly
synonymous with successful performance of business organizations (Rohlfer, 2004).
However, success means different things to different people. Measuring project success
is a complex task since the concept is an intangible feeling of perspective that can
rarely be agreed upon. Collin (2002) advocated that KPIs are general indicators of
performance that focus on critical aspects of outcomes. Later researchers have applied
the concept of KPIs to measuring success of construction projects and in particular
D&B projects (Chan and Chan, 2004; Chan et al., 2002). However, KPIs measure
different key result areas of a construction project (Collin, 2002) and so there is a lack of
common base for comparison. For instance, Project A may excel in time performance,
but mediocre in cost performance and poor in quality. Whereas Project B may be poor
in time performance; but it is superb in cost performance and only mediocre in quality
performance. In such cases, it is difficult to compare the overall performance of the two
projects and there is a need for a single success index to make comparison possible.
One approach to better indicate the success level of D&B projects is the development of
a project success index (PSI-D&B). With the extensive use of D&B worldwide and its
distinctive features dealing with the problems inherent with the traditional
design-bid-build method, an investigation into the project success for D&B can help
set a benchmark for future projects.
This paper is divided into four parts. It firstly provides a summary of the earlier work
of the authors in the development of KPIs in construction projects (Chan et al., 2002; Chan
and Chan, 2004), with particular emphasis on developing success criteria for D&B
projects. Then the process of conducting the empirical study with D&B project
participants in the construction industry of Hong Kong will be outlined. The results of
generating an equation to compute the success index for D&B projects will also be
presented and discussed, and the conclusions will be drawn at the end of the paper.
Benchmarking success and criteria for construction projects
Benchmarking is currently considered as one of the most effective approaches to help a
company improve its performance (Maire et al., 2005). Many companies consider that it
is the search for best practice and many initiatives were launched to count, classify
and propose best practices. In fact, the definition of success often changes from project
to project but Parfitt and Sanvido (1993) claimed that the criteria for success can
commonly be developed to assess the performance of a project. Traditionally, success
is defined as the degree to which project goals and expectations are met. It should be
viewed from different perspectives of individuals and the goals related to a variety of
elements, including technical, financial, educational, social and professional issues
(Parfitt and Sanvido, 1993; Lim and Mohamed, 1999).
Project success seems to be the goal, which can be achieved through the objectives of
budget, schedule and quality. Each project has a set of goals to accomplish, which serve as
a standard to measure performance. Indeed, Lim and Mohamed (1999) defined criteria as

Performance of
design-build
projects
625

BIJ
14,5

the set of principles or standards by which judgment is made, and Chan et al. (2002) show
the relationship among goals, performance measures and project success (Figure 1).
While success can be measured in terms of goal attainment, there is ambiguity in
determining whether a project is a success or failure. A gradual change in the
assessment criteria of project success has been observed over the last 15 years.

626

Assessing success for construction projects

Project participants have different perceptions towards the ambiguous concept of
project success. As a result, the lack of consensus makes it difficult to tell whether
a project is successful or not. A review of related previous studies suggests that
research measuring project success has progressed through a number of stages.
Chan et al. (2002) described different views of previous researchers on project
performance by focusing on meeting objectives. This was followed by taking a global
approach of the topic, and more recently, the focus has been considerations beyond the
project. They conducted a comprehensive literature review over the last 15 years and
they suggested that project success should be something much more important than
simply meeting cost, schedule and performance specifications. They quoted the earlier
work of Chan (1996) to assess the success of construction projects from both objective
and subjective points of view. They also provided a review of the contemporary work
of Shenhar et al. (1997), Atkinson (1999), and Lim and Mohamed (1999) and concluded
that the scale of project success measures extends far away from the project itself.
Chan and Chan (2004) introduced the concept of KPIs to the framework of success
criteria. They divided KPIs into two groups: objective and subjective measures. The
former uses mathematical formulae to calculate the respective values while the latter
uses subjective opinions and personal judgement of stakeholders. They also applied
the KPIs to some hospital projects and concluded that each project has unique results.
Criteria of success for design-build projects
Molenaar and Gransberg (2001) defined D&B as an alternative project delivery method
that encompasses both project design and construction under one contract. This
procurement method has become a popular mode of procuring construction work and
researchers have gradually started to investigate the topic of success criteria for D&B
projects. Added to the review of literature on construction projects in a generic sense,
Chan et al. (2002) further provided a comprehensive desk study on the topic of success
criteria for D&B projects over the last 15 years (Table I).
Ndekugri and Turner (1994) stated that the performance of the D&B project can be
considered a success if the clients criteria are met. Songer and Molenaar (1996, 1997)
Goals/
Objectives

Figure 1.
Relationship among goals,
performance measures
and project success

PROJECT
SUCCESS

Performance
Measures/
Criteria
Source: Chan et al. (2002)

Types

D&B project success criteria

Objective

Previous studies
Ndekugri and Songer and
Molenaar
Chan Turner
(1996, 1997)
(2000) (1994)

Time, cost, quality

U
Safety
U
Subjective Meeting specifications/employers requirements (ER)
Conformance to expectation of project team members
Satisfaction of project team members
Functionality
U
Aesthetics
Reduction in dispute

U
U
U

U
U

Performance of
design-build
projects
627

Source: Chan et al. (2002)

found that the primary success criteria for D&B projects are consistent with those for
construction projects in a generic sense, which are on budget, on schedule and
conforms to users expectations. Chan (2000) focused the research on the enhanced type
of D&B and assessed project performance based on the criteria of time, cost, quality,
functionality and safety requirements.
Time. Bubshait and Almohawis (1994) defined time as the degree to which the
general conditions promote the completion of a project within the allocated duration.
Naoum (1994) and Chan (1996) measured this criterion by time over run and
construction time, respectively. Songer and Molenaar (1997) also considered on
schedule as one success criterion for D&B projects.
Cost. Bubshait and Almohawis (1994) defined cost as the degree to which the
general conditions promote the completion of a project within the estimated budget.
It was measured by Naoum (1994) and Chan (1996) as cost overrun and unit cost,
respectively. Songer and Molenaar (1997) also considered on budget as one success
criterion for D&B projects.
Health and safety. Bubshait and Almohawis (1994) defined health and safety as the
degree to which the general conditions promote the completion of a project without
major accidents of injuries. In fact, accidents are caused by a combination of unsafe
acts and unsafe conditions, and the measure of safety can be represented by the
injury/accident rate per 1,000 workers (Labour Department, 2000).
Quality. Bubshait and Almohawis (1994) defined quality as the degree to which the
general conditions promote meeting of the projects established requirements of
materials and workmanship. It is also expressed in terms of technical specification,
function and appearance. While Songer and Molenaar (1997) considered high quality
of workmanship as one success measure, Chan (2000) considered quality as one
success criterion for D&B projects.
Functionality (technical performance). The requirements of technical performance
are normally established in specifications and its performance is best measured by the
degree of variations from those listed in specifications. This criterion correlates with
expectations of project participants and can best be measured by the degree of
conformance to all technical performance specifications. In D&B projects, a clear project
brief is the most important prerequisite for success (Ndekugri and Turner, 1994).
While Songer and Molenaar (1997) considered meeting specifications as one success

Table I.
Literature on success
criteria for D&B projects

BIJ
14,5

628

criterion for D&B projects, Chan (2000) considered functionality as one success
measure.
Satisfaction. Satisfaction describes the level of happiness of key project participants
in a project, including the client, architect, contractor, various subcontractors, surveyors,
and engineers, and end-users. Previous researchers, like Torbica and Stroh (2001)
considered satisfaction an attribute of success. Other criteria, such as aesthetics,
professional image, and educational and social aspects may also be considered to evaluate
project success. Ndekugri and Turner (1994), and Songer and Molenaar (1996, 1997) also
considered satisfaction of project team members, aesthetics and reduction in disputes as
success criteria for D&B projects.
Environmental sustainability. The generation of construction waste is one of the
major negative impacts from a construction project on the environment, which can
be measured by the difference between the amount of the total delivery of materials to
the site and the amount of work completed (Skoyles, 1987).
Benchmarking has become a prevalent tool used by organizations to determine how
well they are doing in comparison to other organizations and how to improve
operations (Kowalski and Swanson, 2005). In the construction field of study, a set of
criteria have been identified by previous researchers to measure success for D&B
projects. However, each criterion assesses the performance of a particular aspect of
outcomes only and so it is difficult to compare the overall performance of different
D&B projects. An empirical study has been conducted with the D&B practitioners in
the Hong Kong construction industry to identify the principal success criteria for D&B
projects. The technique of principal components analysis was employed to formulate a
project success equation and a PSI for D&B contracts (PSI-D&B) is calculated so that
the performance of different D&B projects can be compared and project participants
can be aware of the relative performance level of their D&B projects.
Methodology and data collection
The current research aims to solicit views from industry participants on the (KPIs) for
D&B projects from ranking the criteria of success reported in literature. A set of
questionnaire was prepared to request D&B project participants for their personal
views on the success criteria for D&B projects. The success criteria identified from
reported literature can be divided into 11 components, namely:
(1) time;
(2) cost;
(3) quality;
(4) functionality;
(5) health;
(6) safety;
(7) the satisfaction level of participants on project expectations;
(8) claims performance;
(9) aesthetics;
(10) learning value; and
(11) professional image.

Data from the ranking exercise were synthesized by principal components analysis to
generate an equation. The targets of the research were those participants in the
construction industry of Hong Kong who have gained abundant experience in running
at least one D&B project so that the D&B projects can be assessed by the hands-on
experience of project participants. Since, there is no public list of D&B project
participants in Hong Kong, the target respondents were identified by referring to trade
magazines and web-pages of local construction organizations associated with D&B
activities. Conventional means of contacts with project participants like e-mailings and
tele-communications were adopted to make sure that the information was updated.
The research questionnaires were sent to 248 D&B participants in the construction
industry of Hong Kong. About 21 questionnaires were returned undelivered for
reasons such as removal of office, thus reducing the number of questionnaires sent out
to 227. Finally, a total of 92 valid responses were received and analyzed with a
response rate of 41 percent. More than half (58 percent) of the responses received were
from persons holding senior positions at the directorial and managerial level in their
respective D&B firms. Moreover, the respondents represented major stakeholders in
D&B projects. Almost, half of the respondents (43 percent) work for contractor
organizations while nearly one-quarter of them (24 percent) work for clients. One-third
of the respondents (33 percent) were from consultancies, with 11 percent from
architectural firms, 10 percent from quantity surveying (QS) consultancy firms,
10 percent from engineering consultancy firms and 2 percent from project management
consultancy firms (Figure 2).
The respondents were asked to rate each attribute for the construct of success
criteria on a seven-point Likert scale to indicate the level of importance, ranging from
1 equal to Highly Unimportant to 7 equal to Highly Important. The data were
input into SAS for statistical analysis. The measurement reliability is essential to the
validity of the results of the questionnaire survey (Shen, 2003). It was evaluated by
Cronbachs a coefficients to investigate the internal consistency among the attributes
for the success criterion construct on the Likert scale. The larger the value, the better
the reliability in each component will be. Since, the coefficient obtained (0.84) is larger
than the acceptable threshold (0.7), it indicates a high degree of reliability.

Consultants
33%

Q.S. consultant
Project management 10%
consultant
2%
Engineering
consultant
10%

Performance of
design-build
projects
629

Client organization
24%

Architectural firm
11%

Main Contractor
43%

Figure 2.
Types of organizations to
which respondents were
affiliated

BIJ
14,5

630

Table II.
Mean values of success
criteria for D&B projects

Key performance indicators for design-build projects in Hong Kong

The mean values of the 11 success criteria were then determined to indicate the degree
of importance of the project success criteria for D&B projects from the perspectives of
client, contractor and consultant (Table II).
In the questionnaire, the seven-point Likert scale was used to measure the
perceptions of the D&B project participants on the relative importance of indicators for
D&B project success. If the respondent gave a score of 6 or above to a particular
success criterion, then such a criterion would be considered as important or highly
important as a measure of success for D&B projects. Songer and Molenaar (1996,
1997), and Chan (2000) considered quality and functionality as important indicators of
success for D&B projects. In earlier research, Cheng (2001) and Chan et al. (2003)
represented the level of critical importance by a score of 4 on a five-point Likert scale
in their partnering studies, a common threshold in most construction research.
The pro-rata technique gives a score of 5.6 to represent the level of importance on a
seven-point Likert scale. Therefore, a score of 5.5 or above in the mean value is taken as
the cut-off point for determining the important success criteria for D&B projects in the
current study. The mean values of time, cost, quality and functionality met this threshold
and were considered as the principal success criteria for D&B projects (Figure 3).

Item

Criteria

Mean

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K

Time
Cost
Quality
Functionality
Low accident rate
Minimal claims and disputes
Environmental consciousness
Aesthetic purpose
Learning value
Expectations of project participants
Professional image

6.09
6.04
5.86
5.92
5.49
5.38
5.21
4.97
4.60
5.12
4.85

Note: The shaded area represents the key performance indicators (KPIs) for D&B projects

Time

Cost

Figure 3.
Key performance
indicators (KPIs) for D&B
projects

Success
criteria for
D&B
projects

Quality

Functionality

The concept of Pareto rule, also known as 80/20 rule, applies which states that an
80 percent improvement in performance can be expected by eliminating 20 percent of
the causes of unacceptable performance (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). This is a
grouping method to concentrate on the important criteria rather than the unimportant
ones (Littlechild and Shutler, 1991). Therefore, time, cost, quality and functionality are
considered as the KPIs for D&B projects.
Alternative procurement systems have evolved to cater for the increasing
complexity of projects and the growing emphasis on clients requirements. D&B is one
such system which has been applied worldwide for better project performance. As a
result, the chance of attaining project success can be higher because of better project
procurement method. One qualitative measure for project performance is the
application of KPIs, which are indicators of the respective project outcomes. Although,
KPIs can be used to measure project performance, each KPI serves to measure a
particular aspect of outcomes only and there is no indication on the overall
performance of the construction project. Mrinalini and Nath (2006) describe the task of
benchmarking as comparing certain yardsticks based on some indices that will
measure the relative efficiency of relevant practices. To better indicate the overall
success level of D&B projects from a number of KPIs, a PSI for D&B projects
(PSI-D&B) was developed with the use of principal components analysis, and the
results of the PSI-D&B in Hong Kong are presented and discussed.
Determination of success index for design-build projects (PSI-D&B)
In reality, some KPIs are more influential than others in assessing the successful
performance of a D&B project and so it is necessary to apply different weightings to
different KPIs in developing a single index. This was accomplished by the technique of
principal components analysis which merges the various KPIs into a single index. As a
result, a new variable (index) was formed, which are linear composites of the original
variables (success criteria). Therefore, the computation of an index can help in
comparing the degree of success among different D&B projects.
Principal components analysis
The technique can be applied to compositional data, which consists of observations
x1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xn , for which each element of xi is a proportion, and the elements of xi are
constrained by the sum of the unity (Jolliffe, 2002). Assuming that there are p variables,
the use of the principal components analysis gives the following p linear combinations:

j1 w11 x1 w12 x2 w1p xp

j2 w21 x1 w22 x2 w2 xp
jp wp1 x1 wp2 x2 wpp xp
where j1 ; j2 . . . ; jp are the p principal components and wij is the weight of the jth
variable for the ith principal component. Moreover, this relationship is expressed as:
W 2i1 W 2i2 W 2ip 1;

i 1; . . . ; p

Sharma (1996) believed that the principal components analysis is an appropriate

technique for developing an index. In the equation of the project success index for D&B

Performance of
design-build
projects
631

BIJ
14,5

632

projects (PSI-D&B), the sum of the squares of the weights of the KPIs is equal to one
and the variances of the principal components are the Eigenvalues of the matrix
(Manly, 1986). According to Kaisers rule, any principal components with a variance
less than 1 are not worth retaining and the first principal component, j1, accounts for
the maximum variance in the data (Jolliffe, 2002).
The D&B project participants perceived that the success of D&B projects can
be measured by time, cost, quality, and functionality, which were identified as
the variables to form the principal components scores. The results of the SAS analysis
are summarized in Table III.
The Eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule states that only those variables whose
Eigenvalues are greater than one are retained; as a result, only the Ist order was
retained. The Eigenvectors give the weights that are used in forming the following
project success equation for D&B projects (PSI-D&B):
PSI D&B 0:54 Time 0:55 Cost 0:47 Quality 0:42 Functionality
and the sum of the squared weights of each principal component is one, i.e.
0:542 0:552 0:472 0:422 1
Table IV demonstrates the loadings and coefficients of the identified KPIs in the
equation for PSI-D&B.
In fact, the higher the loading of a variable, the more influential the variable is in
forming the project success index for D&B projects. All the loadings are greater than
Order

Item

KPIs

1st

A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D

Time
Cost
Quality
Functionality
Time
Cost
Quality
Functionality
Time
Cost
Quality
Functionality
Time
Cost
Quality
Functionality

2nd

3rd

Eigenvectors

Eigenvalues

0.54
0.55
0.47
0.42
20.48
20.39
0.39
0.69
0.07
0.16
20.79
0.59
0.69
20.72
20.02
0.08

2.19

0.84

0.61

Table III.
Principal components
analysis of KPIs for D&B
projects

4th

0.36

Table IV.
Loadings and coefficients
of KPIs in PSI-D&B
equation

KPIs

Time

Cost

Quality

Functionality

Loadings
Coefficients

0.797
0.54

0.819
0.55

0.703
0.47

0.626
0.42

the cut-off point of 0.5, indicating that the KPIs are all influential in forming the PSI for
D&B projects. Moreover, the magnitudes of the coefficients agree with those of the
loadings. Therefore, the strengths of the KPIs affecting the overall success of a D&B
project can be represented by their corresponding coefficients. Time and cost were
shown to be indicators of success by the empirical study of the D&B project
participants as well as by previous researchers. Moreover, D&B offers reduction in
project time from the overlapping of design and construction, and better
value-for-money option through the selection of alternative design proposals.
Therefore, the performance of time and cost of a D&B project can significantly affect
the overall success level as represented by the PSI, PSI-D&B.
Applying the concept of PSI in assessing performance for 40 D&B projects
In order to apply PSI to actual practice, the respondents were asked to rate each
attribute for the construct of satisfaction with performance on a seven-point Likert
scale to indicate the level of satisfaction, and the score for each KPI was entered into
the equation.
The PSI-D&B scores provide an indicator for comparing the success level of D&B
projects and set a benchmark for quantifying the successful performance of a D&B
project. While, the performance of D&B projects can be measured objectively in terms
of hard data, the perceptions of D&B project participants concerning project
performance can be quantified by the PSI-D&B. Table V presents the PSI-D&B scores
of 40 D&B projects in Hong Kong.
The respondents assessed the performance of their D&B projects in terms of time,
cost, quality and functionality, and the PSI-D&B scores were calculated using the
equation developed in the study. A score of 1 was given to each of the four criteria in
the equation if the respondent was not at all satisfied with the performance of the D&B
project. Consequently, the smallest possible value of the PSI-D&B is 1.98 (in the event
that each criterion scores 1) while, the largest possible value is 13.86 (in the event that
each criterion scores 7). Therefore, Project 21 was the most successful, as it has the
highest PSI-D&B score.
Developing a PSI curve
Figure 4 shows the cumulative percentage of PSI-D&B values for the D&B projects. The
mean value is 9.88 and the median is 10.11. The percentiles can make project participants
aware of how their projects score in relation to the average D&B projects. For instance, a
project success index of 8.9 for a D&B project indicates that only 38 percent of the D&B
projects scored below this figure, signifying that the performance of the project is not
satisfactory. Therefore, project participants should review the performance of the KPIs
for improvement. By contrast, a PSI-D&B score of 13 would indicate that the
performance of a D&B project is highly satisfactory, with 98 percent of all the surveyed
D&B projects scoring below this figure. PSI-D&B quantifies the overall D&B project
performance and the plot of PSI-D&B provides a continuum of the performance of the
D&B projects from the individual discrete scores. This enables project participants to
know the relative position of the performance of their projects so that improvements can
be made. In fact, benchmarking can be used to compare a whole organization or a
particular process (Tyler, 2005). A benchmark is thus, a point of reference from
which measurements of any sorts may be made (Massa and Testa, 2004).

Performance of
design-build
projects
633

BIJ
14,5

634

Table V.
PSI-D&B scores for 40
D&B projects

Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

PSI-D&B
9.52
9.32
10.25
8.85
11.49
11.40
10.83
10.31
9.78
10.99
10.91
11.88
7.20
8.82
8.68
8.90
8.90
9.99
10.02
10.20
13.39
8.25
12.37
8.58
3.24
7.59
8.05
6.96
12.77
11.41
10.63
8.11
10.52
10.69
8.24
11.65
11.88
12.97
10.76
8.81

Construction companies can therefore benchmark their performance to enable them to

identify strengths and weaknesses. In this manner, the performance of D&B projects can
be compared for benchmarking purposes. The concept of benchmarking has been
applied by the construction industry institute Texas based in the USA as a diagnostic
tool to support continuous improvement. Data can be conveniently added to the
database as projects proceed and comparisons can be made at multiple levels for all
performance measures (http://cii-benchmarking.org/). Such benchmarking analysis has
established significant links between practice use and project performance.

Performance of
design-build
projects

100
90

Cumulative Percentage (%)

80
70

635

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1-3.0

3.1-5.0

5.1-7.0

7.1-9.0
9.1-11.0
PSI-D&B Scores

11.1-13.0

13.1-15.0

Conclusions
Alternative procurement systems, like design and build, have been gradually adopted
to overcome the problem of fragmentation of the traditional design-bid-build method.
While project success is an abstract concept, the identification of success criteria
enables project performance to be improved. This paper provides a review of success
criteria for construction projects in a generic sense, with particular emphasis on D&B
projects. An empirical study has also been conducted with the D&B practitioners in
Hong Kong and it was discovered that the success criteria of D&B projects can be
represented in terms of time, cost, quality and functionality. The concept of project
success has also been quantified by establishing a success index for D&B projects from
the perceptions of D&B project participants. Benchmarking practice and performance
measures indeed provide a reasonable indication of the adequacy of a management
system (Stevanovic et al., 2005). As a result, the successful performance of D&B
projects can be compared by an index, which provides an indicator to compare overall
performance levels among individual projects.
The research has provided a good understanding of the D&B method in the local
context and constructive insights into the knowledge of construction procurement.
It should be useful for project stakeholders to compare the success level with other
D&B projects and even forecast the performance of future projects. It should also help
in setting up an effective project management system to undertake high performance
D&B projects while enriching academic programmes in construction management.
The scope of the study can further be extended to the international arena to aid the
understanding of managing D&B projects under different working cultures in other
countries.

Figure 4.
Cumulative frequency
distribution of PSI-D&B
scores

BIJ
14,5

636

References
Atkinson, R. (1999), Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 337-42.
Bubshait, A.A. and Almohawis, S.A. (1994), Evaluating the general conditions of a construction
contract, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 133-5.
Chan, A.P.C. (1996), Determinants of project success in the construction industry of
Hong Kong, unpublished PhD thesis, University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Chan, A.P.C. (2000), Evaluation of enhanced design and build system a case study of a hospital
project, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 863-71.
Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, A.P.L. (2004), Key performance indicators for measuring construction
success, Benchmarking An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-21.
Chan, A.P.C., Chan, D.W.M., Chiang, Y.H., Tang, B.S., Chan, E.H.W. and Ho, K.S.K. (2003),
Exploring critical success factors for partnering in construction projects, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 2, pp. 188-98.
Chan, A.P.C., Ho, D.C.K. and Tam, C.M. (2001), Evaluation criteria of public-sector design and
build projects in Hong Kong, Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 135-45.
Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D. and Lam, E.W.M. (2002), Framework of success criteria for design-build
projects, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 120-8.
Cheng, E.W.L. (2001), A practical model for construction partnering, unpublished PhD thesis,
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong.
Collin, J. (2002), Measuring the success of building projects improved project delivery
initiatives, July.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2003), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill, Irwin, IL.
Friedlander, M.C. (1998), Design-build solutions, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 14
No. 6, pp. 59-64.
Jolliffe, I.T. (2002), Principal Component Analysis, Springer, New York, NY.
Kowalski, K.B. and Swanson, J.A. (2005), Critical success factors in developing teleworking
programs, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 236-49.
Labour Department (2000), Accident Statistics Bulletin, No. 3, Occupational Safety and Health
Branch, Labour Department, October, The Government of The Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region.
Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999), Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 243-8.
Littlechild, S. and Shutler, M. (1991), Operations Research in Management, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Maire, J.L., Bronet, V. and Pillet, M. (2005), A typology of best practices for a benchmarking
process, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
Manly, B.F.J. (1986), Multivariate Statistical Methods a Primer, Chapman and Hall, London.
Massa, S. and Testa, S. (2004), Innovation or imitation? Benchmarking: a knowledge-management
process to innovate services, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 610-20.
Molenaar, K.R. and Gransberg, D.D. (2001), Design-builder selection for small highway
projects, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 214-23.

Moore, D.R. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2001), Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of performance
improvement in UK design and build projects: a call for change, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 559-62.
Mrinalini, N. and Nath, P. (2006), Comparative evaluation of practices: lessons from R&D
organizations, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Nos 1/2, pp. 214-23.
Naoum, S.G. (1994), Critical analysis of time and cost of management and traditional contracts,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120 No. 4, pp. 687-705.
Ndekugri, I. and Turner, A. (1994), Building procurement by design and build approach,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120 No. 2, pp. 243-55.
Parfitt, M.K. and Sanvido, V.E. (1993), Checklist of critical success factors for building projects,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 243-9.
Retherford, N. (1998), Project delivery and the US department of state, Journal of Management
in Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 55-8.
Rohlfer, S. (2004), Benchmarking concepts in the UK and Germany a shared understanding
among key players?, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 521-39.
Rowlinson, S. (1997), Procurement systems: the view from Hong Kong, CIB W92 Procurement
A Key to Innovation, University de Montreal, Montreal, 20-23 May, pp. 665-72.
Sharma, A. (1996), Applied Multivariate Techniques, Wiley, New York, NY.
Shen, Q. (2003), An investigation of the use of information technology among quantity
surveying firms in Hong Kong, Proceedings at the 7th Pacific Association of Quantity
Surveyors Congress, Tokyo, 31 October-3 November, pp. 62-70.
Shenhar, A.J., Levy, O. and Dvir, D. (1997), Mapping the dimensions of project success,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 5-13.
Skoyles, E.R. (1987), Waste Prevention on Site, Mitchell, London.
Songer, A.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (1996), Selection factors and success criteria for design-build in
the US and UK, Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Songer, A.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (1997), Project characteristics for successful public-sector
design-build, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 123 No. 1,
pp. 34-40.
Stevanovic, V., Feek, C. and Kay, R. (2005), Using routine data for benchmarking and
performance measurement of public hospitals in New Zealand, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 498-507.
Torbica, Z.M. and Stroh, R.C. (2001), Customer satisfaction in home building, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 82-6.
Tyler, M.C. (2005), Benchmarking in the non-profit sector in Australia, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 219-35.
Yates, J.K. (1995), Use of design-build in E/C industry, Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 33-8.
Further reading
Lam, E.W.M. (2005), A conceptual model of success for design and build projects in the public
sector of Hong Kong, unpublished PhD thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong.
Ng, S.T., Luu, D.T., Chen, S.E. and Lam, K.C. (2002), Fuzzy membership functions of
procurement selection criteria, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 285-96.

Performance of
design-build
projects
637

BIJ
14,5

638

Walker, D.H.T. (1996), The contribution of the construction management team to good
construction time performance an Australian experience, Journal of Construction
Procurement, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 4-18.
About the authors
Edmond W.M. Lam obtained his BSc(Hons) degree in Construction Economics and Management
with commendation (First in Class). He completed his PhD in 2005 and he is currently a Project
Fellow at the Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Dr Lam has published several research papers on the theme of construction procurement
management in refereed academic journals and international conference proceedings.
Edmond W.M. Lam is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: bselam@polyu.edu.hk
Albert P.C. Chan had five years hands-on experience in the field of construction project
management before changing to an academic career in 1987. He is a Chartered Builder, Engineer,
Project Manager, and Quantity Surveyor by profession. Professor Chan is currently Associate
Head of the Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, an
Adjunct Professor of the Queensland University of Technology, Australia and the University of
South Australia; and a Founding Director of the Construction Industry Institute, Hong Kong.
His current research interests are in construction management, construction partnering,
construction safety, and project management. E-mail: bsachan@polyu.edu.hk
Daniel W.M. Chan is currently an Assistant Professor in Construction Management and
Engineering at the Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
He is a project manager and construction manager by profession. He has published several research
papers on the broad theme of project management in refereed academic journals and international
conference proceedings. His current research interests include construction procurement systems,
project partnering and strategic alliancing, construction safety management, public private
partnership and target cost contracting. E-mail: bsdchan@polyu.edu.hk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints