framework for implementing design build project … agung diah_parami... · 2013. 8. 8. ·...

FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING

DESIGN BUILD PROJECT DELIVERY

SYSTEM IN ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE

PROJECTS IN INDONESIA

Anak Agung Diah Parami Dewi

ST (Civil), M.T (Construction Management)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment

Science and Engineering Faculty

Queensland University of Technology

Australia

2013

Framework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia i

Abstract

Public infrastructure, particularly road infrastructure, has a very strong

linkage with the economic growth of a nation. Currently, road infrastructure in

Indonesia is inadequate to cover the vast area of the whole country. The condition of

the roads, in general, is far from satisfactory. In addition, the growth of new road

construction has been very slow. Due to these circumstances, there is an urgent need

for the Indonesian government to accelerate the provision and maintenance of road

infrastructure.

Road infrastructure projects in Indonesia are currently delivered using the

design-bid-build (DBB) approach. In the DBB project delivery system, the design

and the construction are contracted separately. Although the DBB approach is

deemed fairer to the contractors, it may not be able to create value for the

infrastructure owner. Its lengthy procurement periods often result in less desirable

outcomes such as excessive costs, unsatisfying quality and time delays.

A review of the literature found that there is an alternative project delivery

system that can overcome the drawbacks of the DBB project delivery system, namely

the design-build (DB) project delivery system. The DB project delivery system is

perceived to have better performance than other project delivery systems. To

implement the DB project delivery system, it is necessary to know the stakeholders‟

understandings of the concept of the DB project delivery system, barriers to

implementing the system and factors that can promote the system. While research

into this area has involved many researchers, there is no critical mass of information

specifically related to the Indonesian situation. Studies based on road infrastructure

client/owner/ agency perspectives on the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system in Indonesia have not been previously undertaken. The lack of

research intention in this area is particularly surprising as the DB project delivery

system has not been implemented yet in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

Increased awareness of the potential implementation of the DB project delivery

system in Indonesia is needed. Moreover, there has been limited research into the

hierarchy and relationships among the factors that can promote the implementation

of the DB project delivery system.

This thesis, therefore, was aimed to develop a framework to guide the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system in Indonesian road infrastructure

projects by investigating the stakeholders‟ understandings of the concept of the DB

project delivery system, the barriers to implementing the system and the factors that

can promote it. While it is acknowledged that there has been little research on the DB

project delivery system, particularly the in Indonesian context, there has also been

limited research into the hierarchy and relationships among the factors that can

promote the potential implementation of such a system.

Delphi questionnaires were distributed to the panel of selected experts who

were derived from the Ministry of Public Works, National Development Planning

Agency, universities and the Construction Services Development Board. The survey

aimed to identify the stakeholders‟ understandings of the concept of the DB project

iiFramework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

delivery system, barriers to implementing the system and factors that can promote

the system. Pair-wise comparison questionnaires were distributed to the same expert

panel, and were then analysed using Interpretive Structural Modelling, to identify the

hierarchy and relationships among the factors that can promote the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system. The results supported the

development of the model for implementing the DB project delivery system in

Indonesian road infrastructure projects.

The research found that the road infrastructure project stakeholders in Indonesia have

a good understanding of the concept and advantages of the DB project delivery

system. Several barriers to the potential implementation of the DB system were also

identified. These barriers are related to regulations, client‟s capabilities, other

stakeholders‟ capabilities, and adaptability. To overcome the barriers and to promote

the potential implementation of the DB project delivery system, fourteen factors

were identified. Those fourteen factors form a six level framework for the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system for road infrastructure

development in Indonesia. Legislative authority, on the first level, is the foundation

for implementing the DB project delivery system. This would be the basis for

adjusting and improving relevant regulations and processes, and establishing the

relevant agency‟s management vision and support for adopting or implementing the

system. This is then followed by acceptance of change by the internal agency‟s staff

and communication with the affected external parties. Training on the DB project

delivery system should be conducted with all the parties involved. Such training can

be expected to lead to a number of necessary developments including the availability

of adequately trained staff in the agency, the support and acceptance of other

stakeholders and industry providers, and enhanced communication and knowledge

sharing among the participants, which in turn would facilitate a pilot project

Keywords: Design-build project delivery system, barriers to potential

implementation, promoting factors, Indonesian road infrastructure projects

Framework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesiaiii

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................i

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................vi

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Abbreviations ..............................................................................................................................ix

Statement of Original Authorship ........................................................................................................... x

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Research Background .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Research Aim and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Significance of the Research............................................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Research Scope ................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 7

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Design-Build Project delivery system in Road Infrastructure projects ........................................ 7 2.2.1 Alternative Project Delivery Systems ............................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Countries that Use the DB Project Delivery System ...................................................... 12

2.3 Understanding The Design-Build PrOject Delivery System ...................................................... 17 2.3.1 Concept of the Design-Build Project Delivery System................................................... 18 2.3.2 Advantages of the Design-Build Project Delivery System ............................................. 24 2.3.3 Barriers to Implementing the DB Project Delivery System ............................................ 31

2.4 Road Infrastructure and Its current Project Delivery System in Indonesia ................................ 36 2.4.1 Indonesian Road Infrastructure Project Demand and Supply ......................................... 36 2.4.2 Current Project Delivery System in Indonesian Road Infrastructure Projects ................ 39 2.4.3 Use of the DB Project Delivery System in Indonesia ..................................................... 41 2.4.4 Stakeholders in Indonesian Road Infrastructure ............................................................. 42

2.5 Factors for promoting the DB Project Delivery System ........................................................... 45 2.5.1 Regulation ....................................................................................................................... 45 2.5.2 Capability of Client and Other Participants .................................................................... 49 2.5.3 Management ................................................................................................................... 51 2.5.4 External Conditions ........................................................................................................ 53

2.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 55

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................... 57

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 57

3.2 Research Questions .................................................................................................................... 57

3.3 Selection Of Research Method .................................................................................................. 59

3.4 Description Of Selected Research Method ................................................................................ 62 3.4.1 Delphi Questionnaire Survey .......................................................................................... 63 3.4.2 Pair-Wise Comparison Survey ........................................................................................ 68

3.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 75

ivFramework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

CHAPTER 4: POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DB SYSTEM:

STAKEHOLDERS’ UNDERSTANDING, BARRIERS AND PROMOTING FACTORS .......... 77

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 77

4.2 Delphi Process ........................................................................................................................... 77 4.2.1 Formation of Panel Experts ............................................................................................ 78 4.2.2 Distribution of the Delphi Questionnaires ...................................................................... 80 4.2.3 Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 82

4.3 Stakeholders‟ Understanding Of The DB Project Delivery System (Concept And Advantages)83 4.3.1 Delphi Round 1 Rating Scores ....................................................................................... 83 4.3.2 Delphi Round 2 - Considering the Ratings ..................................................................... 90

4.4 Barriers to Implementing DB Project Delivery System ............................................................. 98 4.4.1 Delphi Round 1 Rating Score ......................................................................................... 98 4.4.2 Delphi Round 2 – Considering the Ratings .................................................................. 100

4.5 Factors That Can Promote THE POTENTIAL Implementation of Project Delivery System .. 103 4.5.1 Delphi Round 1 Rating Score ....................................................................................... 103 4.5.2 Delphi Round 2 – Considering the Ratings .................................................................. 106

4.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 110

CHAPTER 5: MODEL FOR IMPLEMENTING DB PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM ........ 113

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 113

5.2 Description of the Data Collection Process ............................................................................. 113 5.2.1 Profiles of Experts ........................................................................................................ 114 5.2.2 Development and Distribution of the Questionnaire .................................................... 115

5.3 Developing the ISM-based model ........................................................................................... 116 5.3.1 Structural Self-Interaction Matrix ................................................................................. 116 5.3.2 Reachability Matrix ...................................................................................................... 119 5.3.3 Level Partition .............................................................................................................. 122 5.3.4 Development of Structural Model ................................................................................ 124 5.3.5 Driving Power- Dependence Diagram .......................................................................... 127

5.4 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 128

CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 130

6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 130

6.2 Stakeholders‟ understanding oF the db project delivery system .............................................. 130 6.2.1 Understanding the Concept of the DB Project Delivery System .................................. 131 6.2.2 Understanding the Advantages of the DB Project Delivery System ............................. 134

6.3 Barriers to Implementing the DB project Delivery System and Factors that Can Promote DB

System potential Implementation ........................................................................................................ 139 6.3.1 Barriers to Implementing the DB Project Delivery System .......................................... 139 6.3.2 Factors that Promote the Potential Implementation of the DB Project Delivery

System .......................................................................................................................... 143

6.4 Model for Implemeting the DB project Delivery System ........................................................ 148

6.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 152

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 153

7.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 153

7.2 Potential Implementation of the DB Project Delivery System: Stakeholders‟ Understanding,

Barriers and promoting Factors ........................................................................................................... 153

7.3 Research Contribution ............................................................................................................. 155 7.3.1 Contribution to Academic Knowledge ......................................................................... 156 7.3.2 Contribution to the Industry ......................................................................................... 156

7.4 Study Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 157

Framework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesiav

7.5 Reccomendations for Future Research ..................................................................................... 157

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 159

APPENDIX A – INVITATION LETTER ...................................................................................... 174

APPENDIX B – PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT AND

CONSENT FORM ............................................................................................................................ 177

APPENDIX C – DELPHI SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................... 184

APPENDIX D – PAIR-WISE COMPARISON SURVEY ............................................................. 209

APPENDIX E – SPSS RESULTS .................................................................................................. 219

APPENDIX F – LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ................................................................................. 261

viFramework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Design-bid-build ................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 2.4: Design-build ...................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2.5: Advantages of the DB project delivery system ................................................................. 30

Figure 2.6: Barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system ................................................. 36

Figure 2.7: Factors promoting the potential implementation of the DB project delivery system ........ 55

Figure 3.1: Research framework .......................................................................................................... 58

Figure 3.2: Example of Driving Power- Dependence Diagram .......................................................... 74

Figure 5.1: Structural model of factors that can promote potential implementation of DB

project delivery .................................................................................................................. 125

Figure 5.2:Driving Power-Dependence Diagram ............................................................................... 127

Figure 6.1 : Interpretive Structural Model for Implementing the DB Project Delivery System

In Indonesian Road Infrastructure Projects ........................................................................ 149

Framework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesiavii

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Relevant situation for different research methods (Cosmos Corporation cited in Yin

(2009)) .................................................................................................................................. 60

Table 3.2: Summary of selected research methods in this study ........................................................... 62

Table 4.1: Interviewee details ............................................................................................................... 78

Table 4.2: Number of experts invited to participate and who agreed to participate in the Delphi

survey ................................................................................................................................... 79

Table 4.3a: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system concept – Definition of DB ..................... 84

Table 4.3b: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system – Procurement and contract

characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 84

Table 4.3c: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system – DB project characteristics..................... 85

Table 4.4a: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) –

Shorter duration .................................................................................................................... 87

Table 4.4b: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) –

Lower cost ............................................................................................................................ 88

Table 4.4c: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) –

Better quality ........................................................................................................................ 88

Table 4.4d: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) –

Enhanced innovation ............................................................................................................ 89

Table 4.4e: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) –

Better management ............................................................................................................... 90

Table 4.5a: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system concept –Definition

of DB .................................................................................................................................... 91

Table 4.5b: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system concept –

Procurement and contract characteristics ............................................................................. 91

Table 4.5c: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system concept – Project

characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 92

Table 4.6a: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits – Shorter

duration ................................................................................................................................ 94

Table 4.6b: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits – Lower

cost ....................................................................................................................................... 94

Table 4.6c: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits – Better

quality ................................................................................................................................... 95

Table 4.6d: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits –

Enhanced innovation ............................................................................................................ 96

Table 4.6e: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits – Better

management ......................................................................................................................... 97

Table 4.7a: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Regulation .................................. 98

Table 4.7b: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Client competencies ................... 99

Table 4.7c: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Other

participant/stakeholder capability ......................................................................................... 99

Table 4.7d: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Adaptability ............................. 100

Table 4.8a: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Lack of regulation .................... 101

viiiFramework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

Table 4.8b: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Lack of client capability .......... 101

Table 4.8c: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Other

participant/stakeholder capability ...................................................................................... 102

Table 4.8d: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Adaptability ............................. 102

Table 4.9a: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of the DB project delivery

system –Regulation ............................................................................................................ 104

Table 4.9b: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB Project Delivery

System – Client capability ................................................................................................. 104

Table 4.9c: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery

system – Management by client ......................................................................................... 105

Table 4.9d: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery

system – External conditions.............................................................................................. 106

Table 4.10a: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery

system – Regulation ........................................................................................................... 107

Table 4.10b: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery

system – Capability of client .............................................................................................. 107

Table 4.10c: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery

system – Management ........................................................................................................ 108

Table 4.10d: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery

system – External conditions.............................................................................................. 109

Table 5.1: Number of experts who were invited, agreed and completed the pair-wise

comparison survey ............................................................................................................. 114

Table 5.2: Factors that can promote the DB potential implementation ............................................... 115

Table 5.3: Structural self-interaction matrix ....................................................................................... 118

Table 5.4: Initial reachability matrix ................................................................................................... 120

Table 5.5: Final reachability matrix .................................................................................................... 121

Table 5.6: Iteration I............................................................................................................................ 123

Table 5.7: Iteration II .......................................................................................................................... 123

Table 5.8: Iteration III ......................................................................................................................... 123

Table 5.9: Iteration IV ......................................................................................................................... 124

Table 5.10: Iteration V ........................................................................................................................ 124

Table 5.11: Iteration VI ....................................................................................................................... 124

Framework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesiaix

List of Abbreviations

AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials

ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BAPPENAS = Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional

CII = Construction Industry Institute

CM = Construction Manager

DB = Design- Build

DBB = Deign- Bid- Build

DBOM = Design Build Finance Operation

DBOM = Design Build Operation Maintenance

DOT = Department of Transportation

EPC = Engineering Procurement Construction

FHWA = Federal Highway Administration

GAPENRI = Gabungan Pengusaha Rancang Bangun Indonesia

LPJK = Lembaga Pengembangan Jasa Konstruksi

PROPENAS = Program Pembangunan Nasional

USDOT = United State Department of Transportation

WYDOT = Wyoming Department of Transportation

xFramework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date: 1/8/2013

Framework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesiaxi

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I would like to thank God. He has given me the power to

believe in myself and pursue my dreams. I could never have done this without the

faith I have in you, the Almighty.

Acknowledgements go to all the people who have been an integral part of this

study. Without them this thesis would definitely not have been possible. First of all,

I would sincerely like to thank my principal supervisor, Associate Professor

Bambang Trigunarsyah for his knowledgeable guidance, wisdom, patients, calmness

in my PhD journey. Without his persistent support this thesis may never have been

completed on time nor would I have survived it. Associate Professor Bambang

Trigunarsyah through his mentoring enabled me with passionate and self possessed

that this journey was indeed possible to complete.

My deepest appreciation also to my associate supervisors Dr. Eric Too and Dr.

Paul Xia for their invaluable help in developing idea, checking sources and logical

flow of my thesis, and for their great and precise attention to detail and for willingly

sharing their expertise and in-depth knowledge. Thank is also extended to Dr.

Vaughan Coffey for checking my writing in early stage of my PhD journey.

This study would not have been possible without the scholarship from

Directorate General of Higher Education on behalf Indonesian Government. Their

financial support is gratefully acknowledged. Appreciation is also due to Ms. Helen

Whittle for her editorial review and Science Engineering (SEF) Faculty Research

Administrative Officers for helping me in administration arrangement during my

study.

Gratitude for the support and assistance from Mr. Tri Waluyo and Ms. Lisniari

Munthe (Ministry of Public Works), Mr. Aryawan (BAPPENAS), Mr. Joego

Herwindo (LPJKN) is acknowledged and appreciated. Special gratitude is also

extended to experts from Indonesian construction industry and universities, who

kindly participated in the questioner survey of this study

I wish to also thank my best friend during my PhD study Candra Dharmayanti

and my lovely office mates in S920 Zabihullah Sadiqi, Miljenka Perović, Pauline

xiiFramework for Implementing Design Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

Teo, Mohamad Saifulnizam Suhaimi, Ayomi Dita, Amir Hossein Heravi and Mohd

Amizan for their support, friendship and laughter they provided. Many thanks to all

my friends and colleagues in Australia and Indonesia for all the emotional support

and helping me through the difficult times.

I would also like to make special mention to those individuals and

organisations benevolently contribute their support, guidance, encouragement and

contribution to this research project. Finally, I express my heartfelt gratitude to my

family, especially my husband Anak Agung Ngurah Surya Kencana, for his

unlimited patience and encouragement throughout the entire study period.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This thesis is dedicated to my daughters, Diandra and Maharani

Chapter 1:Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Public infrastructure, particularly road infrastructure, has a strong linkage with the

economic growth of a nation. Road construction is vital as the main support of

dynamic economic activity at both the central and local levels. In Indonesia, as in all

other countries around the world, the possession of a good road network is necessary

to support growth in both the central and regional levels.

In 2006, Indonesia was positioned at number eight of twelve ASEAN

countries in regard to the length of road infrastructure (Hidayatika 2007). In addition

to length, it is necessary to review the quality and conditions of the constructed road

in order to see the overall picture of the road infrastructure. A report by the

Indonesian Ministry of Public Works (2010) indicated that almost 25% of the 38,500

km national road network was in poor condition. In addition, the growth for new

road construction has been slow. Such a worrying condition is compounded by the

fact that many of the roads that are in poor condition are located in provincial and

rural areas. Given the important role of road infrastructure in supporting economic

development, there is an urgent need for the Indonesian Government to accelerate the

provision and maintenance of road infrastructure.

The availability and dependability of the road infrastructure system in

Indonesia has been subject to debate. The government‟s road-building program has

often been hampered by funding issues which means the government is unable to

meet existing needs and manage the high cost of construction. The road

infrastructure projects authorised by the Directorate General Bina Marga-Ministry of

Public Works are currently delivered using the design-bid-build (DBB) approach

(Rahadian 2009). In the DBB project delivery system, the design and the

construction are contracted separately. Although the DBB approach is deemed fairer

to the contractors, it may not be able to create value for the infrastructure owner. Its

lengthy procurement periods, for example, often result in undesirable outcomes such

as excessive costs, unsatisfactory quality and time delays.

2 Chapter 1:Introduction

An alternative project delivery system, called design-build (DB), is a system

in which the design and construction stages are merged into one contract. Its use is

not new in the construction industry, and research has shown it is more popular than

other project delivery systems such as DBB and the traditional construction

management approach (Flora et al. 1998) and has been used extensively over the last

ten years (Park et al, 2009). This project delivery system was first introduced in

1969 to deliver military housing in the United States (Cook and Smith 1984), and by

the 1980s it was extended to many other public sectors and private works such as

dormitories, lodges, bowling alleys, warehouses, courthouses, mail distribution

facilities, laboratories, medical clinics, courthouses, and highways (Cook and Smith

1984; Federal Construction Council 1993; Myers 1994; Yates 1995). Its popularity

has spread over many other countries such as the United Kingdom, Korea and

Singapore.

The central theme of the DB project delivery system is that the contractor has

the responsibility to perform both the design and construction stages and this brings

the system several advantages. These advantages emanate from the contractor‟s early

participation in the design process, and include reduced project completion time,

lower cost and enhanced communication (Anumba and Evbuoman 1996; Konchar

and Sanvido 1998). This delivery system satisfies the client‟s need to accomplish

projects earlier and with fewer overall expenses and additional costs.

Many studies on the DB method have examined its advantages, barriers,

performance, contract strategies, and procurement methods. However, only limited

research has explored how DB can be implemented successfully. For this reason, this

study examines how the DB delivery system can be implemented successfully in the

Indonesian road infrastructure context.

On behalf of the Indonesian Government, the Directorate General of Bina

Marga-Ministry of Public Works has the authority for road infrastructure provision.

In order to carry out their functions effectively, the Ministry of Public Works is

mandated to adopt the DB project delivery system (Department of Public Works

2009). In fact, the DB project delivery system is implemented in the Law of the

Indonesian Government No. 18, 1999 on Construction Services Regulations. Section


16 clause 3 of the law states that the design, construction and control services can be

integrated with regard to cost, advanced technologies and high risk. Furthermore,

Indonesian Government Regulation No. 29, 2000 on Construction Service

Implementation (Section 13 subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4) states that construction project

service procurement can be delivered by an integrated approach. It means that the

DB project delivery system is recognised as an attractive form of road infrastructure

delivery. Yet despite the regulation, the DB delivery system has not been

implemented widely in Indonesian road infrastructure projects. Therefore, there is a

need to examine how to accelerate the DB system in road infrastructure projects in

Indonesia.

1.2 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research is to develop a framework to guide the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system in the Indonesian road

infrastructure projects. In order to attain the research aim, there are three research

questions that need to be addressed:

1. What are the stakeholders‟ understandings of the DB project delivery system?

2. What are the barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system and the

factors that can promote the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia?

3. What are the relationships and hierarchy among the promoting factors?

Based on the research questions above, three main research objectives are developed

to assist the process of achieving the aim of this research:

1. To review the stakeholders‟ understanding of stakeholders in the DB project

delivery system.

2. To identify the barriers to implementing the DB Project Delivery System and

the factors that can promote the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

3. To examine the relationship and hierarchy among the factors that can

promote the potential implementation of the DB project delivery system.


1.2.1 Significance of the Research

This study seeks to address the current lack of research into the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system in road infrastructure projects in

Indonesia. Based on research that has been conducted by previous research, the DB

project delivery system has been extensively and successfully implemented in both

the public and private sectors. However, most of the research has been conducted in

developed countries. Due to the different nature of construction between developed

and developing countries, those previous research outcomes in developed countries

may not be applicable in developing countries (Roy and Koehn 2006). For instance,

developing countries tend to use labour-intensive construction methods and employ a

large number of unskilled workers. Moreover, the developing countries often employ

poor construction management techniques and lack the knowledge, skill and

experience of technical supervision for large-scale projects.

This research examines the potential implementation of the DB project delivery

system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia. As a developing country, most of

the public infrastructure projects in Indonesia are delivered by the traditional DBB

approach. To date, the DB project delivery system has only been introduced and

adopted in private and state-owned enterprise projects. Therefore, this study can

contribute to a deeper understanding and knowledge of the DB project delivery

system, particularly with regard to its potential implementation. This is significant as

the DB project delivery system has yet to be used in Indonesian road infrastructure

projects. In addition, the framework developed in this research will provide a guide

to the main stakeholders to implementing the DB project delivery system in


1.2.2 Research Scope

This study is focused on the development of a hierarchy model aimed at successfully

implementing the DB project delivery system in road infrastructure projects. The

study is limited to the Indonesian infrastructure industry, in particular road

infrastructure projects. While road infrastructure is a general focus in this study, non-


toll road infrastructure projects dominate the findings and the establishment of the

model as the final outcome of the research.

The objectives of the research limited the types of respondents to those who

were involved in the road infrastructure projects. Most of the respondents had

extensive experience and possessed decision-making roles in their respective

organisation, and had some exposure to the project delivery system, particularly the

DB project delivery system. They mostly represented government departments and

several were academics (from universities). The involvement of these stakeholders in

this study provides views from owner perspectives and enriches the research

findings.

Although the model is specifically applicable to the Indonesian context, the

learning gained through this study can be shared with other countries and regions

seeking to advance their pursuits in DB project delivery system potential

implementation.

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

To achieve the research aim, this thesis starts with a discussion on the current state of

knowledge by addressing the relevant literature, which is summarised in Chapter 2.

Areas covered in this chapter include the importance of road infrastructure in

Indonesia, including demand and supply of the road infrastructure and the current

project delivery system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia. The literature

review also covers the alternative project delivery systems, and the principles of the

DB project delivery system as the main topic of this thesis including the concept of

the DB project delivery system and its advantages. The literature on barriers to

implementing the DB project delivery system and factors promoting the potential

implementation of this system are also surveyed. Finally, the need for developing an

interpretive structural model is explained. Overall, Chapter 2 identifies the research

gap, which justifies the need for this study.


Chapter 3 describes the research design in detail including: selection of

research method; the selected research methods; the selection of the participants;

research instrumentation; and finally, the data analysis. It starts with a brief summary

of the literature review that led to the establishment of the three research questions.

These research questions were used as the basis for selecting the appropriate research

methods.

Chapter 4 describes the data analysis and results of the Delphi questionnaire

survey. The questionnaire feedback is presented and the results tabulated in order to

answer the research questions. Understandings of the concept of the DB project

delivery system, barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system and factors

promoting the DB project delivery system are identified.

Chapter 5 discusses the development of a hierarchy model for implementing

the DB project delivery system. This section explains the development of the model

by using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). The model is developed to obtain

the hierarchy of the factors promoting the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system. Chapter 6 discusses the research findings, which are then

concluded in Chapter 7.

Chapter 2:Literature Review 7

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the current knowledge by reviewing the literature relevant to

the research objectives developed in the previous chapter. As well as establishing the

depth and breadth of the existing body of knowledge in the area of the DB project

delivery system in road infrastructure projects, the review of literature aims to

identify the concept of the DB project delivery system barriers to implementing the

DB system and factors that can promote the potential implementation of the DB

project delivery system. However, this study only focuses on the procurement side

rather than aspects of road design and execution.

The first section presents the DB project delivery concept before discussing the

implementation of the DB project delivery system in road infrastructure projects

generally. Features of the DB project delivery system are also highlighted including

the concept and advantages of the system. This is followed by an overview of the

current road infrastructure in Indonesia and its current project delivery system. A

thorough review of the barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system and

the factors that can promote the DB project delivery system is presented. Premised

on these discussions, the research gap in this research is identified, which leads to the

formation of the research questions.

2.2 DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM IN ROAD

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Road infrastructure is important to economic activities, especially in developing

countries where it provides 80% to 90% of the total inland and/or border crossing

transport of people and goods (Queiroz and Gautaman 1992; Hudson et al. 1997). All

central activities of a nation such as the economy, social cultural activity and politics

are linked by road infrastructure (Soemardi & Wirahadikusumah, 2009). Road

infrastructure also has a strong link with economic growth of an area. High economic

8 Chapter 2:Literature Review

growth will be difficult to achieve without the availability of adequate roads. Thus,

the availability and reliability of transportation infrastructure, especially the road

infrastructure system, is critical for the development of a nation (Badan Pemeriksaan

Keuangan Republik Indonesia 2009).

Furthermore, the evolution and development of a community depends on road

infrastructure as a means of distribution of various resources and community

services. For example, road infrastructure is needed to link the economy in rural and

urban areas for the distribution of agricultural products, and to provide access to

health, education and other services to rural communities. A good road infrastructure

system provides an economic and efficient system of distribution of goods and

services, which ultimately contributes to improving the nation's competitiveness

(Soemardi & Wirahadikusumah, 2009).

In recent years, it has been acknowledged that the slow pace of project delivery

system leads to increased costs, inefficient resource allocation and risks to economic

vitality and quality of life. Many transportation agencies experience a backlog of

projects because of limited funding. As congestion and related costs increase, there

is a need to seek alternatives and opportunities in road infrastructure provision. An

alternative project delivery system could reduce the time and costs associated with

the implementation of road infrastructure projects.

2.2.1 Alternative Project Delivery Systems

Society is rapidly changing and public clients are attempting to meet the essential

needs of this fast-paced change. Aging infrastructure, cost escalation, limited

resources, limited productivity, acute regional development, environmental issues

and sprawling growth are causing concern to the management and administration of

infrastructure networks. These are strong motivations for seeking alternative and

innovative project delivery systems (Pakkala 2002).

Gransberg et al. (2006) defined a project delivery system as “the process by

which a construction project is comprehensively designed and constructed for owners

Chapter 2: Literature Review 9

including project scope definition; organization of designers, constructors and

various consultants; sequencing of design and construction operations; execution of

design and construction; and closeout and start-up”. As such, a project delivery

system is a method of procurement by which the owner‟s assignment of delivery risk

and performance for design and construction are transferred to another party

(parties). Usually these parties are a design entity who has responsibility for the

design, and a contractor who has responsibility for the performance of the

construction (Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission 2003). A project

delivery system involves the roles, responsibilities and relationships shared among

the project team members in order to carry out a project.

Project delivery methods are delineated by several distinguishing

characteristics related to the number of primary contracts for design and

construction, and the basic services provided. Thus, four primary alternative delivery

methods defined by distinguishing characteristics (Konchar and Sanvido 1998; del

Puerto et al. 2008; Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission 2003) are:

Design-bid-build: As illustrated in Figure 2.1, in this method, the agency

employs a design professional and a construction company on separate

contracts to prepare construction documents and perform the construction,

respectively. In a public sector project, the project is advertised and awarded

to the lowest responsible bidder. In private projects, the owner may choose to

negotiate with the contractor rather than publicly request bids. The key to

identifying this delivery method is the fact that the owner embraces two

separate contracts, that is, one contract for design and another for

construction. This method has been the standard option for project delivery

for many years. After project completion, the owner is then responsible for

the operation and maintenance of the project. The owner is also responsible

for all the financing aspects.


Figure 2.1: Design-bid-build

Construction management at fee (Agency or Advisor): This delivery method

is basically the same as DBB except that the owner will employ a

construction manager (CM) on a third services contract to perform as the

owner‟s agent during the design and construction stages of the project. The

CM only represents the owner and is not a risk for the construction. The CM

takes on the responsibility for administration and management,

constructability issues, and day-to-day activities. The CM does not have

contractual obligations to the design and construction entities. After

completion of the project, the owner is responsible for operations and

maintenance as well as the financing aspects. The owner has at least three

contracts, as shown in Figure 2.2. The solid lines in the figure indicate the

contractual relationship and the broken lines indicate the operational

relationship.

Figure 2.2: Construction management at fee

A/E = Architect/ Engineer


CM = Construction Manager

CO = Contractor

Construction management at risk: In this delivery method, the agency issues

a design contract and selects a CM at the same time. The CM provides pre-

construction services during the design phase and then after all the

subcontractor bid packages are awarded, furnishes the owner with a guarantee

maximum price (GMP), and takes control of the construction phase and is at

risk for the GMP. This method is commonly also called the construction

manager/ general contractor method. After completion of the project, the

owner is responsible for operations and maintenance as well as the financing

aspects. The basic structure of the method is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Construction management at risk

A/E = Architect/ Engineer

CM = Contraction Manager

CO = Contractor


Design-build: In this method, illustrated in Figure 2.4, the owner selects a

single entity to furnish both design and construction services. Thus, the

owner has only one contract for the entire project. Upon completion of the

project, the owner is then responsible for operations and maintenance. The

owner is also responsible for all financing aspects.

Figure 2.4: Design-build

The two most commonly used methods in infrastructure provision are the DBB and

the DB project delivery system. The DB project delivery system offers several

distinctive benefits over the other three project delivery systems. Speed, cost and

quality are the key aspects of the DB method which give it the best performance

among the four types of project delivery systems (Construction Industry Institute

1997). DB also has other advantages such as single responsibility, contractor

participation in the design process, better cost certainty, enhanced communication

and reduced project completion time (Anumba and Evbuoman 1996). Palaneeswaran

and Kumaraswamy (2000) explained that the complexities and needs of the

construction industry require efficiency in terms of cost and time.

2.2.2 Countries that Use the DB Project Delivery System

The first use of the DB project delivery system was in ancient times whereby the

“master builders” were commissioned to build palaces, pyramids, cathedrals and

temples (Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy, 2001). A review of the literature shows

that, currently, DB is extensively used in many countries for both projects in the


public and private sectors. Likewise, DB is an emerging delivery system in road

infrastructure projects. The patterns of DB use in a selection of countries are

discussed as follows.

United States

The design-build project delivery system is not new in the US construction industry.

The use of the DB project delivery system has been increasing, with more than one-

third of the current construction projects in the US delivered using the DB project

delivery system. DB has been successfully implemented as a method in highway and

other transportation project (Gransberg & Senadheera, 1999).

During the 1980s and 1990s in the US, state transportation agencies (STAs)

across the nation attempted to seek alternative processes that could expedite the road

infrastructure projects needed to support state-wide mobility and economic

development. Since 1990, a number of transportation agencies (as owners, sponsors

or contracting agencies of highway projects) have been experimenting with a wide

variety of innovative project delivery strategies which aimed to lower the costs and

time of road construction and rehabilitation projects and improve the quality of

maintenance projects (USDOT Federal Highway Administration 2006). The FHWA

stated further that the DB project delivery system represents the most promising

method that can streamline the development of the project, lower the costs and

duration and maintain or improve quality.

Moreover, Gransberg (2003) studied the implementation of DB in road

infrastructure in 15 states in the US and found that it is both effective and efficient.

Similarly, in another study by the US Department of Transportation Federal

Highway Administration (USDOT FHWA) (1999), it was reported that 21 out of 50

state departments of transportation (DOTs) in the US that had adopted the DB project

delivery system to deliver highways had successfully implemented their projects.

The DB method is a mature and proven tool throughout the US to deliver

highways and other infrastructure projects (Gransberg & Molenaar, 2007). The

benefits of faster project delivery and increased cost certainty have been validated.


Furthermore, Gransberg and Molenaar (2007) indicate that the FHWA will no longer

consider the DB method to be experimental and has provided a framework to ensure

quality in federally-funded construction projects. Some states allow the use of the

DB project delivery system, while several sates prohibit the use of such a system.

Florida has been using the DB method for almost 20 years and more than half of the

states now utilise the DB project delivery system to some degree. For the state of

California, the DB project delivery system has been identified as an option for

project delivery that can help the state meet its urgent infrastructure project delivery

needs (Gransberg & Molenaar, 2007). It was predicted in 2005 by the Design Build

Institute of America that the DB system would achieve 50% use in construction by

2010.

United Kingdom

The UK construction industry has been subject to a huge change in the approach to

construction procurement work in 1990s (Akintoye 1994). Clients/owners/agencies

increasingly prefer the DB project delivery system to other alternatives. As a result,

from the early 1980s to the late 1980s and over the last ten years in the UK, the use

of the DB project delivery system has increased and there has been a rising number

of variants of the DB procurement method (Ndekugri and Turner 1994).On the other

hand, the use of the DB method has been limited in the public sector. Public sector

projects are generally small and the DB project delivery system has mainly been

applied in housing and health building projects. Up to 60% of all DB projects were

used in the private sector‟s industrial building and commercial office building

(Anumba and Evbuomwan 1997).

It is noted that the DB project delivery system is beginning to be used more

frequently for many types of infrastructure projects. There has been a recent growth

in the use of the DB project delivery system especially in power plants, water works,

bridges, airport expansion, rail, roads, and also in some local authority projects. The

number of such projects compared to traditional methods is quite few, however more

significant when compared to the total percentage of expenses (Pakkala 2002). The

UK Department of Transport has considered the DB project delivery system for

highways as a serious alternative to eliminate the increased cost difference between


the tendered and out-turn prices of contracts. In fact, currently, both private and

public sector use of the DB project delivery system has increased considerably

(Moore and Dainty 2001).

Korea

In Korea, the DB project delivery system was firstly used in the public sector in the

mid-1970s. The development of DB in Korea has been influenced by the

implementation of this method in other countries. For instance, there has been

considerable growth in the number of DB projects in the US construction industry

since the early 2000s. In the same way, there has recently been prominent growth in

the number of DB projects in Korea.

Data from the Construction Association of Korea (2000-2006) revealed that

15,934 public projects had been completed in 2005. It shows that expenditure in DB

projects was greater than in DBB projects ($84,768.3 million versus $1,461.9

million). Furthermore, the number of DB projects was 10% of total construction in

the Korean public sector in 2000. The number of DB projects performed by public

agencies has since been gradually rising, and in 2005, 26% of public projects ($13

billion) were procured by the DB project delivery system (Lee 2006; Park et al.

2009).

Even though rapid growth has occurred in the Korean public sector, only a few

bid attendees have been capable of participating in DB tender. Over the past three

years, the number of DB bid attendances that have participated in the bidding process

has remained three, while the number of DBB firms has risen from 355 to 536. The

top six firms have been awarded over 67% of public DB projects (Rye, 2006; Park,

2006). While these top firms have enjoyed market domination, there has not only

been an ensuing lack of variety among successful DB parties, but the owners of

public projects have not been able to benefit from the advantages the DB method has

to offer.


Hong Kong

Unlike Korea, the Hong Kong construction industry can be defined as an

international market. Contractors across the world can easily participate in the Hong

Kong construction market with few barriers (Tam & Harris, 1996). Nevertheless,

competition is prominent. Inflation rates, rising labour costs and more rigorous

environmental and safety controls have led to a narrow profit margin. The

completion times and quality of work are adversely affected. Meanwhile, the

architectural performance is declining due to a booming construction industry market

that stretches the resources of architectural companies. Poor design quality is having

critical effects on variations, delays and claims. This, combined with employing

inexperienced architects and the consequent lack of build capability, has decreased

the construction industry performance. For this reason, the construction industry is

encouraged by government to use innovative delivery systems such as the DB

method in which contractors offer to complete the project from design to

construction. In the DB system, the designer and contractor work to produce a design

that can enhance buildability and minimise the possibility of the project manager

making mistakes (Tam, 2000).

Kuwait

In Kuwait, the traditional DBB project delivery system is proving to be insufficient

to achieve the public sector owners‟ needs and expectations of finishing the projects

on time and within budget (Kartam et al. 2000). Hence, public sector owners in

Kuwait are currently considering methods like the DB project delivery system to

overcome the difficulties of the DBB project delivery system. For an owner, the

main advantages of DB include the ease of using a single team for development of

the project and time management benefits reaped by combining the design and

construction stages (Al-Reshaid and Kartam 2005).


Malaysia

In Malaysia in the last decade, most construction projects have been implemented by

the traditional DBB project delivery system. However, in more recent years, the

traditional DBB project delivery system has been perceived as not suitable to the

current needs. The DB project delivery system was first introduced in the

Department of Public Works by the Malaysian Prime Minister in 1983 (Seng and

Yosuf 2006). As the DB project delivery system could save time and cost, it was

perceived to be an attractive method. Moreover, the clients were dissatisfied with the

performance of the conventional DBB project delivery system. The mega-projects in

Malaysia mostly adopted the DB project delivery system, such as the Twin Petronas

Towers, Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Penang Bridge and Malaysia North

South Highway. Currently, the DB project delivery system is an alternative project

delivery system which is popular in the public sector (Seng and Yosuf 2006).

In Malaysia, road infrastructure project, particularly in mega scale project such as

toll and highway project are delivered using Design Construct and Build Operate and

Transfer (BOT) (Nima et al. 2002; Shen et al. 2002). Both Design Construct and

BOT are variation of the DB project delivery system. These projects are funded

using Public Private Partnership (Hensley and White 1993). In the Malaysia context,

the obstacles have been a combination between a political and bureaucratic nature.

Some of the key problems encountered are resistance, legal constraints, and

absorptive capacity of financial system (Hensley and White 1993).

2.3 UNDERSTANDING THE DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT DELIVERY

SYSTEM

The DB project delivery system has been implemented by construction project

clients/ owners/ agencies to overcome the drawbacks of the traditional DBB project

delivery system. This section introduces the concepts and advantages of the DB

project delivery system, as well as barriers to its potential implementation.


2.3.1 Concept of the Design-Build Project Delivery System

The concept of the DB project delivery system can be explained by reference to the

definition of the DB project delivery system, the DB procurement and contract

characteristics, and characteristics of the DB projects.

Definition of the DB Project Delivery System

The DB project delivery system is derived from the “master builder” concept and has

a number of definitions that have been supported by different researchers. According

to Masterman (2002), the term “design-build” has almost been unanimously defined

as one contractor taking sole responsibility.

Other researchers have attempted to define the concept of the DB project

delivery system. The DB project delivery system has been defined as a purchase or

procurement of a construction from a single contractor who is responsible for both

design and construction (Akintoye and Fitzgerald 1995). According to the US

National Society of Professional Engineers (1995), the DB project delivery system is

a method whereby a single entity which is known as the design builder is responsible

for both the design and construction of a project.

The Design and Build Institute of America (1996) explains that DB is also

known as “design-construct” or “single responsibility”. The DB firm or company has

single responsibility for design and construction services (Konchar and Sanvido

1998; Arditi and Lee 2003). The key aspect of the DB project delivery system is the

single point of responsibility for design and construction (Hanscomb 2004).

The DB project delivery system also means that one entity performs both

design and construction. The US Construction Industry Institute (1997) stated that

the DB is an arrangement between an owner and a sole entity to execute both design

and construction phases under one DB agreement. Janssen (1991) explained that the

DB project delivery system is one of the project delivery systems used in the

construction industry whereby the owner will enter into a single contract with one

entity to perform the full service of designing and constructing a facility. The DB

project delivery system has a principal definition, whereby one entity performs both


engineering and construction under one contract (USDOT Federal Highway

Administration 2006). Levy (2007) explained that the real meaning of DB is to place

design and construction in one company: a design-builder. Companies of this nature

were formed when a general contractor employed an architect and an engineer as a

team to provide a full service association. In this arrangement, it can be said that the

contractor will design and construct the project.

The review of the definition of the DB project delivery system highlights

several aspects of the DB project delivery system, namely: the client deals directly

with the constructor for the complete design and construction, the

constructor/designer builder has single responsibility, the constructor will design and

construct the project, and the project is executed by a single entity/organisation.

Premised on this, the key feature of the DB project delivery system is single

responsibility.

The DB project delivery system also has several variations. Masterman (2002)

listed the DB variations which are commonly used, as follows:

Novated design and build

Package deals

Turnkey method

Develop and construct.

Similarly, Xia et al. (2011) classified the DB operational variations including:

Develop-and-Construction where most of the design is completed by the

client and the remaining of the detailed design is the successful DB

contractor‟s responsibility

Novation DB where the successful DB contractor has responsibility for

construction work and detailed design, which may also extend to design

development, with the assignment of the design consultant from a DB client.


Enhanced DB where the successful DB contractor has responsibility for the

design development, detailed design, and construction work.

Traditional DB where the successful DB contractor is responsible for all the

design and construction work.

Turnkey method where the successful DB contractor provides everything,

including the commission and handover after construction.

Six techniques of the DB project delivery system have been identified by Akintoye

(1994) as follows:

Traditional design and build, where the contractor has total responsibility for

both the design and construction.

A package deal, where the contractor provides standard systems which are

adapted to meet client‟s requirements.

Design and manage, where the contractor manages all aspects of the planning

and design and supervising the subcontractors.

Design, manage and construct – this is similar to design manage but the

contractor is involved in the construction of some work sections in addition to

coordinating the subcontractor‟s activities.

Novation design-build, where the client passes the architect to the contractor

to produce detailed drawings as part of the contractor‟s team.

Develop and construct – this is a hybrid of DB in which the contractor

inherits the design that might have been produced by the client‟s consultants

up to stage D on the Royal Institute of British Architect‟s Appointment Scale.

This is developed further by the contractor in terms of detailing, taking into

account the construction technique to be adopted for the project. This is


different from novation DB in the sense that the architect who provides the

concept design is not passed to the contractor by the client.

The DB project delivery system has variations and combinations. The US DOT

FHWA (2006) listed the following DB variations:

Design-build with a warranty, where the contractor provides an integrated

design and construction process whose product is guaranteed to meet

specified material and workmanship or performance standards over a

prescribed timeframe.

Design-build-operate-maintenance (DBOM), where the contract team is

responsible for design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the

facility.

Design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) – this is an extension of the

DBOM project delivery method in which the contract team is also

responsible for the financing of the project and takes the risks of

financing the project during the contract term.

Build-operate-transfer, which is similar to DBFO. The contract team

acquires ownership of the facility until the end of the contract term at

which time ownership of the facility is returned to the original public

sector contracting agency.

Full delivery or program management, where the construction entity

provides a wide variety of services to the contracting agency beyond

construction. It starts at the planning stage and potentially continues

through facility operations and maintenance.

The DB project delivery system can be further classified into several types related to

the purpose and role of the entity. Pietroforte and Miller (2002), the USDOT FHWA

(2006) and Chappell (2007) classified the DB project delivery system into several

variations and combinations as follows:


Design and build, where the contractor is responsible for the design and

construction phases. This term is used by the industry as a general name

for all variants of this procurement category.

Design and construct – this is a wider term and it includes design and

build, but also other types of construction such as purely engineering

works of various kinds.

Develop and construct, where a contractor is called upon to take a design

which is partially completed and to develop it into a fully detailed design

before being responsible for construction.

Package deal, where the contractor is responsible for providing

everything.

Turnkey, where the contractor really does do everything, including

providing the furniture if required.

Design and manage – this is not strictly design and build at all, but simply

an architect-led version of the contractor-led construction management.

From the review on the variations of the DB project delivery system, it can be seen

that in most of the DB project delivery system variations, the contractor/ constructor

has responsibility for the design and construction. The differences may be due to the

financing, operation and maintenance.

DB Procurement and Contract Characteristics

In the DB project delivery system, the design and construction are integrated into one

contract (National Society of Professional Engineers 1995; FHWA 2006; Barrie and

Paulson 1992; Chappell 2007). This characteristic is also highlighted by Beard,

Loukakis and Wundram (2001) and Friedlander (1998) who describe DB as an

alternative project delivery system in which the contract of design and construction

are not separated. As this system is under one contract, the design and construction


are paid for in a single financial transaction (Seng and Yosuf 2006). Usually, the

preferred payment in the DB project delivery system is based on a fixed price lump

sum (Beard et al. 2001; Friedlander 1998; USDOT Federal Highway Administration

2006; Seng and Yosuf 2006; Ministry of Public Works 2008).

The procurement of the DB project delivery system is conducted once

(Akintoye 1994; Songer and Molenaar 1997; Lam et al. 2004). This single

procurement is performed for design and construction. DB is also known as

engineering, procurement and construction because of the integration of engineering,

procurement and construction (Yuwono 2007; Ministry of Public Works 2008). In

the DB project delivery system, the process of tender is conducted through limited

tender (Molenaar et al. 1999; Government of Indonesia 2000).

Characteristics of DB Projects

DB project characteristics include size, type of project and complexity of the projects

(Lam et al. 2004). The size of project can be defined by the construction/ building

cost, number of workers, duration of the project and value of contract (Songer and

Molenaar 1997; Yates 1995). There is no standard for the size of the DB project

(Molenaar and Songer 1998; Songer and Molenaar 1997). The owners/clients/

agencies do not have the necessary information to decide projects using the DB

project delivery system. The DB project delivery system was previously used for

projects with a simple structure (Ndekugri and Turner 1994) while sometimes used

for small and medium projects (Swan 1987). Yet, research and lessons learned

indicate that the DB project delivery is suitable for large and complex projects

(USDOT Federal Highway Administration 2006; Seng and Yosuf 2006; Hanna et al.

2008). The Indonesian Government (2003), for example, states that the DB project

delivery system can be used for projects which have a value of $5 million or above.

Despite this regulation, it is still debating whether to allow projects which have a

value of $1 million to $2 million to use the DB project delivery system.

According to Songer and Molenaar (1997), project complexity can be

determined by the types of physical services involved, the number of sub-contractors,

the resources in terms of labour, plant and materials, the level of technology and the


uniqueness of project activities. Project complexity can be seen in factors such as:

the varied tasks; the need for specialists; requirement for efficient coordinating,

control, monitoring from start to finish; and intricate works (Baccarini 1996). Gidado

(2010) explained that a complex project is characterised by: having a large number of

different systems that need to be put together and / or with a large number of

interfaces between elements; involving construction work on a confined site with

access difficulty and requiring many trades to work in close proximity at the same

time; projects with a great deal of intricacy; requiring a lot of details about how it

should be executed; requiring efficient coordinating, control and monitoring from

start to finish; and usually encountering a series of revisions during construction and

needing interrelationship between activities.

The DB project delivery system is also used in high risk projects (Government

of Indonesia 1999; Ministry of Public Works 2008). High risk projects can be

indicated as follows: can endanger public safety and human life; can endanger the

environment; can result in hazards; and can endanger the labour at the project site.

According to America Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) (2008), the DB project is used when the project is unique and the owner/

client/ agency has limited applicable experience. Therefore, to deal with the project,

specialists are needed in the project scope. The DB project delivery system is also

conducted in complex projects.

Based on the key distinguishing feature of the DB project delivery system, the

definition adopted in this research is that the DB system is a project delivery system

where both the design and construction phases are under one contract and one

organisation‟s responsibility. In addition, the finance is provided by government as a

client. Then, the client contracts the design and construction under one agreement.

2.3.2 Advantages of the Design-Build Project Delivery System

The use of the DB project delivery system has been steadily increasing in the

building construction sector since the 1980s and has been achieving acceptance in


transportation projects since the 1990s (AASHTO 2008; Gibson et al. 2007; Hanna et

al. 2008; USDOT Federal Highway Administration 2006).

Having defined the DB project delivery system, it is important to next identify

the benefits or advantages of the DB project delivery system. This section discusses

the advantages of DB as a project delivery system and the justification for selection

of the DB project delivery system in the construction industry.

Shorter Duration

Shorter duration is believed to be the most significant advantage that the DB project

delivery system provides. The DB system typically results in an overall shorter

duration in delivering a project. According to Gransberg and Molenaar (2007), the

DB project delivery system can reduce overall project duration by about 14.5%. An

average of 14% time savings when compared to the DBB schedule estimates was

found in DB projects conducted by the FHWA when compared to the DBB schedule

estimates. The Florida DOT found a 37% percent time savings on its first 11 DB

demonstration projects when compared to the DBB project delivery system.

The benefit of shorter duration and time savings are due to the simultaneous

contracting of both the design and construction. The DB project delivery system is

very effective because it has a strength in delivery speed whereby the process to bid

construction separately from the design services is eliminated (Konchar and Sanvido

1998; USDOT Federal Highway Administration 2006).

The shorter duration can be also achieved by the fast track method (Chan

2000; Beard et al. 2001; Abi-Karam 2002). Fast tracking in the DB project delivery

system is done by overlapping the design and construction. The construction can be

commenced when the design is being carried out (Gibson et al. 2007; Lam et al.

2008). In addition, determining the materials and other components early can shorten

the duration of the DB process (Gibson et al. 2007; USDOT Federal Highway

Administration 2006).


Improved constructability or buildability can contribute to the shorter

duration. This is due to the involvement of construction experts and the use of their

expertise and knowledge. This gives opportunities to expedite the project completion

using innovative approaches (Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy 2000; AASHTO

2008; Gibson et al. 2007; USDOT Federal Highway Administration 2006).

Moreover, Konchar and Sanvido (1998) demonstrated that a project which is

conducted using the DB project delivery system significantly improves the schedule

advantage.

Lower Cost

Lower cost can be gained by using the DB project delivery system (Molenaar and

Gransberg 2001; AASHTO 2008; USDOT Federal Highway Administration 2006).

There are several reasons for the DB project delivery system advantage of lower

cost, including: the designer and contractor being in the same team, early cost

certainty, early project completion, and the use of the experience and knowledge

(constructability) that the contractor/ design builder provides. Konchar and Sanvido

(1998) demonstrated that a project which is conducted using the DB project delivery

system significantly improves the schedule advantage. However, numerous studies

have found that the DB project delivery system had no significant cost savings.

According to Stagner and Thomas (2004), the DB project delivery system is unlikely

to be cheaper and is specially unlikely to reduce an agency‟s cost.

Lower cost can arise by reason of several indicators such as the designer and

constructor being in one team (National Society of Professional Engineers 1995).

Collaboration between the designer and constructor in teamwork can reduce bidding

costs because the tender is conducted once. Costs may be further reduced by the fact

that the owner does not have to award separate design and construction contracts or

administer the disputes between the designer and contractor which invariably occur

when separate contracts are let (Esquire 2011).

According to AASHTO (2008), the early cost certainty contributes to the cost

saving because of the use of a lump sum contract before completing the design. If

there are changes, then there is no additional cost borne by the owner. According to


Ming (2005), the earlier certainty of cost makes the client certain of when the project

will be finished, which has important cost implications. In addition, lower cost could

be gained if the project is completed early.

Cost savings can be achieved by incorporating the issue of access, working

method, and buildability/ constructability, whereby the design builder/ DB contractor

make optimum use of their experience and knowledge (Chan 2000; Ndekugri and

Turner 1994). Moreover, when the designer and contractor work closely together as a

team to evaluate construction alternatives, perform value engineering and consider

constructability during the design process, significant cost savings may accrue to the

owner. Therefore, lower cost can be achieved.

The DB project delivery system provides advantages in the sense that “time is

money”. It means that completing projects quickly can save costs for the owners.

The time savings may also result in cost saving (Seng and Yosuf 2006).

Better Quality

According to Turner (1995), the DB project delivery system gives greater

responsibilities and accountabilities so that it is as a motivator for higher quality

projects. The DB project delivery system offers better quality over other project

delivery systems(USDOT Federal Highway Administration 2006). Although Hanna

et al. (2008) state that is difficult to compare the quality of the DB project delivery

system to other project delivery systems, the USDOT FHWA (2006) states that the

DB project delivery system offers better quality over other project delivery systems

and does not in any way compromise the quality the quality of highway projects.

Optimum use of the constructability of the design builder can lead to better

quality in the projects. The use of constructability is related to the quality of the

project, whereby the DB project delivery system uses the best value method

(AASHTO 2008). The DB project delivery system enables contractors to use their

experience and knowledge leading to many options to be considered and resulting in

the best quality. Use of the best value designer can be rewarded in the design and

construction of projects that are above minimum standards. In addition, the best


value designer often makes choices that increase the value of the project without

substantially increasing the cost. These capabilities of the contractor can improve the

quality of the projects (USDOT Federal Highway Way, 2008).

Allowing the owner to use the best value method can result in better quality.

This method enables the owner to assess the best design quality regardless of the

cost. Accordingly, the owner can also assess which contractor deserves to be

awarded the tender (AASHTO 2008).

Allowing/ Enhanced Innovation

In the DB project delivery system, innovative management approaches can be

employed to avoid the escalation of potential problems(Chan et al. 2004; Deakin

1999). In Japan, for example, value engineering was applied in some DB projects to

enhance value in relation to design and construction (Hidenori 1995). As sub-

contractors in the DB projects are normally required to provide design services, it is

suggested that a team-based management structure rather than a traditional hierarchy

should be adopted to make sub-contractors aware of their importance to the overall

success of the DB project (Beard et al. 2001).

DB can also lead to innovation in management. In addition to formal changes

in process management, many DOTs in the US are increasing transparency and open

communication among project developers, review agencies and the general public.

For example, the California and Virginia DOTs have established Web-based

databases where stakeholders and the public can track a project‟s status and progress

through the development process. Virginia‟s new Web-based system has been

credited with helping improve the timelines of project delivery (Resource Systems

Group 2007). Innovation in management also occurs when the teamwork can be

improved to reduce the amount of time spent and to control information flows due to

the direct and open communication between the client and the contractor (Rowlinson

1987).

Combining the experience of the contractor and the design of the consultant

and the buildability that they have, can technically result in more efficient projects


(Akintoye and Fitzgerald 1995; Turner 1995). The DB project delivery system can

promote the constructability by involving their knowledge. Moreover, the

constructability fosters the contractors‟ knowledge and experience to produce

creative design and use a variety of material, equipment and construction techniques

(Arditi and Lee 2003).

The DB project delivery system allows the contractor to have significant

freedom and flexibility. Therefore, it enables the design builder to express innovation

in management, using any materials and equipment, and modern construction

techniques. Even though the designer and builder are in one team, they can use their

separate strengths to develop new design and techniques which are innovative and

modern. This benefit is supported by a study by WYDOT (2002).

Better Management

Better management arises due to the single responsibility feature of the DB

system(Oregon Department of Transportation 2002). There is single responsibility

for all performance. For an agency/ client with limited internal resources, this ability

to focus contact and control can be an efficient way to manage a construction project.

Konrath (1990) notes that only the DB project delivery system works properly

whereby the entire team works together from the commencement of the project.

Single responsibility can change the adversarial process to a collaborative process for

the designer and constructors (Cheng and Tsai 2008; National Society of

Professional Engineers 1995; Seng and Yosuf 2006).

The DB project delivery system can reduce the administrative burden because

the procurement of design and construction is consolidated into a single

process(National Society of Professional Engineers 1995). Single responsibility can

minimise the dispute and conflict because they are responsible for the entire project.

The owner will not arbitrate the distinct design and construction entities because now

they are in the same team or entity and they responsible for the whole project

delivery.


The single responsibility that the DB team provides can streamline the

coordination and communication between the design and construction team because

they are in the same team or organisation. The DB project delivery system allows the

contractor to meet, discuss, and streamline the coordination regarding the design,

planning, construction and control of the project (USDOT Federal Highway

Administration 2006; Ming 2005). They can do coordination promptly and

communicate closely during the process (Howell and Cliff 1995; Rowlinson 1987;

National Society of Professional Engineers 1995; Seng and Yosuf 2006).

Single responsibility can avoid the complexities of the multiple contracts

because in the DB project delivery system the design and construction is contracted

once and the contractor is responsible for both the design and construction (National

Society of Professional Engineers 1995; USDOT Federal Highway Administration

2006; Hanna et al. 2008).

This review of the literature clearly explains the advantages of the DB project

delivery system. Premised on the review, the DB project delivery system indeed

appears to have significant advantages over other project delivery systems. Figure

2.5summarises the major benefits of the DB project delivery system.

Figure 2.5: Advantages of the DB project delivery system


2.3.3 Barriers to Implementing the DB Project Delivery System

It is recognised that there are potential significant benefits for using the DB project

delivery system (Hanna et al., 2008). However, there are also barriers in

implementing the DB project delivery system.

The DB project delivery system is a relatively new system and it has not been

implemented yet in Indonesian road infrastructure projects. Although the integrated

project delivery system is attractive and allowed (Government of Indonesia, 1999),

such a system faces barriers to potential implementation. This section reviews the

barriers that can hinder the potential implementation of the DB project delivery

system.

Regulation

Before using the DB project delivery system, the public client/ agency should

identify the legislation which permits the use such of a delivery system (Oregon

Department of Transportation 2002; USDOT Federal Highway Administration

2006). Lack of the relevant legislation will create fundamental problems in

implementing the DB project delivery system. For example, in the US in 1997 there

was no systematic or formalised method of selecting appropriate DB projects.

Agencies do not have the information to determine which projects are best suited

using the DB project delivery system (Songer and Molenaar 1997).

In the US, restrictions are placed on public sector clients‟ use of the DB project

delivery system. In 1995, the US National of Professional Engineers reported that

statutes, legislations and regulations current at the time only allowed the public

sector to use the DBB project delivery system (National Society of Professional

Engineers 1995). Wider implementation of the DB project delivery system could not

be attained unless the legislation, regulation and laws were passed allowing the use

of the system. In states in the US that subsequently passed the DB legislation, there

are stringent terms explicitly stating the guidelines for the use of the DB project


delivery system. In some other states, broader language is used which allows more

freedom in the use of the DB project delivery system (Hanna et al. 2008).

Although the DB project delivery system may not be expressly prohibited by

statute, neither may it be expressly authorised. The absence of this authorisation can

lead to some public officials being reluctant to select the DB project delivery system.

Therefore, statutory language that expressly authorises the DB project delivery

system may be appropriate if the government wishes to encourage its use (Hanna et

al. 2008). Changes may have to be made to existing statutes and regulations in order

to accommodate the implementation of the DB project delivery system. In Indonesia,

the DB project delivery system as a form of integrated project delivery system is

allowed (Government of Indonesia 1999). However, it is acknowledged that the

current legal framework still lacks detailed regulation to accommodate the DB

project delivery system. This should be addressed through the adjustment of

regulations concerning the procurement process and construction (Soemardi &

Pribadi, 2010). To strengthen the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system in Indonesia, adjustment and improved regulation on project

characteristics, tendering system, contractual arrangement and risk approach also

need to be detailed. Each unit of government has to carefully evaluate the applicable

law prior to implementing the DB project delivery system to satisfy themselves and

to ensure the potential design builder that such a delivery system is appropriate

Client Capabilities

Implementing the DB project delivery system requires more competence, experience,

and skills from parties and stakeholders involved. The Colorado, Kentucky,

Maryland, New Mexico and Tennessee DOTs in the US reported issues of

competition with industry for experienced engineering personnel. The adequate staff

is perceived to be lacking (Gransberg & Molenaar, 2007). Most state transport

agencies lack staff who have experience with the DB (Migliaccio et al. 2009).

Lack of client/agency capability in terms of experience and knowledge can

hinder the use of the DB project delivery system (Pearson and Skues 1999; Ling and

Poh 2008). Lack of skills and lack of understanding, as well as lack of knowledge


and experience, are also obstacles regarding the capability of the client. According to

Migliaccio (2007) and Gibson et al. (2007), the lack of skills and understanding

regarding the DB project delivery system creates hindrances. In addition, lack of

adequate staff can impede the DB implementation. Similarly, the lack of manpower

and lack of resources are problem that owners face in the DB system (Ling and Poh

2008).

Although the DB project delivery is expected to reduce project costs, this

project delivery system can lead to considerable time being spent in experimenting

and developing new organisational routines to support procurement change. Due to

these factors, clients,/agencies/stakeholders can be reluctant to make the effort to

conduct the DB project delivery system (Gibson et al. 2007).

Lack of resources such as budget, knowledge and experience are general issues

in implementing the DB project delivery system. In the US, these issues are common

in any DOT that uses the DB project delivery system. Despite these issues, the

Pennsylvania DOT (Hanna et al. 2008)claimed that lack of knowledge and

experience were not potential problems to implementing the DB project delivery

system.

Capabilities of Other Participants/Stakeholders

Stakeholders are persons or organisations who are actively involved in the project or

whose interests may be affected by the performance or completion of the projects

(Project Management Institute 2008). Project stakeholders are classified into direct

and indirect stakeholders. Direct stakeholders can be divided into primary and

secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders include those who have power,

authority, responsibilities or claims over the resources. These stakeholders are central

to any project initiative. Indirect stakeholders can be divided into external

stakeholders and extended stakeholders.

Other participants or stakeholders (e.g. design builder/contractor) must have

the necessary skills and experiences in order to implement the DB project delivery

system. The DB project delivery system is a relatively new option in the Indonesian


road infrastructure projects. In the Indonesian construction industry, the DB project

delivery system has only been conducted in the private sector and state-owned

enterprises. As the DB project delivery system has not been implemented as often as

the traditional DBB project delivery system, there are fewer experienced and skilled

stakeholders who have been directly involved in implementing the DB project

delivery system.

One study found that, in Texas, the departments of transport were often

pervaded by a widespread fear of criticism that may be one of the causes for limiting

the involvement of providers in the procurement process; it also results in lower

industry competition (Migliacio 2007). Lack of the DB experts and lack of design

capability of contractors also can hinder the implementation of the DB project

delivery system (Ling& Chong, 2005). For example, the designer cannot manage the

design process because they are not conversant with management techniques. They

may have no experience in constructability, and they fail to coordinate the various

inputs into finished products (Howell, 1995). Lack of the DB experts can affect the

lack of input and contribution to the implementation of the DB project delivery

system.

Adaptability

Adaptability can be explained as ability to change something to fit to occurring

changes (Andresen & Gronau,2005). Adaptability to change is necessary to cope

with constant and rapid change in technology, markets, regulations and socio-

economic factors (Hemlin 1999; Yates 1995). Adaptability is a general issue for any

department of transport when initiating the DB project delivery system. For instance,

the US Department of Transportation is not accustomed to the DB project delivery

system (USDOT Federal Highway Administration 2006). Moreover, the US

Department of Transportation acknowledged that was not easy to oversee this project

delivery system when it is conducted at the state level. Yates (1995) and Ho et al.

(1996) explained that clients may have no confidence in managing the new system

which is still being learned and tested.


The existence of cultural barriers provides other challenges for successful DB

implementation (USDOT Federal Highway, 2004). A client/owner/agency who tries

the DB project delivery system for the first time may be constrained by the

traditional DBB method (Molenaar and Gransberg 2001). In implementing the DB

project delivery system in road infrastructure projects, the owner would more likely

prefer to implement the traditional DBB system rather than implementing DB

because they are not familiar with the new system. Ho(1995) and FHWA (2004)

pointed out that most clients preferred the traditional DBB system to the DB system

since most local companies were accustomed to the DBB system.

Fear of change or resistance to adopting a new system is also experienced

when using an unfamiliar system (Migliacio 2007; Hanna et al. 2008). Prior to

initiating the DB project delivery system, the departments of transport in the US

were generally using DBB. Consequently, they are accustomed to implementing

projects in the current manner.

According to Fahmy and Jergeas (2004), the DB project delivery system as a

relatively new system to most owners could lead to misunderstandings in the

implementation. They found that in the California Department of Transportation, for

example, employees perceived that it was not easy to implement the DB project for

the first time (Fahmy and F.Jergeas 2004). They did not see the benefits of the DB

project delivery system. They also saw DB as a threat to their work. It appeared that

the primary motivation for resistance to adopting the new system was fear of change

which made them wary of implementing the DB project delivery system. The

clients/owners/agencies are also not aware of the benefits of the DB system (Hemlin

1999), although the benefits of the DB project delivery system are widely reported.

Lack of promotion of the DB system can hinder the DB implementation.

Pearson and Skues (1999) argued that lack of promotion of the DB within the

industry may hinder further adoption. Lack of attention from clients can contribute to

the barriers in implementing the DB project delivery system. It might be due that the

owner does not have enough experience with the DB project delivery system. The

clients tend not to use the DB project delivery system because it is an unfamiliar


system. Figure 2.6 illustrates the barriers to implementing the DB project delivery

system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

Figure 2.6: Barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system

2.4 ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS CURRENT PROJECT

DELIVERY SYSTEM IN INDONESIA

This section discusses the conditions of the road infrastructure in Indonesia including

demand and supply, current project delivery system in road infrastructure projects

and the use of the DB project delivery system.

2.4.1 Indonesian Road Infrastructure Project Demand and Supply

Government policy with regard to road infrastructure development is based on the

development program policy and strategy which refers to the National Development

Program (PROPENAS). The aims of PROPENAS are:


to develop the welfare of the people and accelerate economic recovery with a

focus on maintaining infrastructure and improving the level of service and

isolated regional area accessibility

to enhance regional development regional development

to strengthen local autonomy

to enhance community development and expedite the treatment/ handling of

special areas (KIMPRASWIL 2001).

The development of road infrastructure is one of the basic elements in the Indonesian

economic recovery, especially in supporting the development of local and regional

development. In addition, infrastructure development is expected to create jobs,

improve competitiveness, create a healthy investment climate, support the

development of local and regional development, as well as meet the various needs of

other infrastructure services (Bappenas 2002).

Indonesian road infrastructure projects are divided into two categories, namely,

toll road infrastructure and non-toll road infrastructure (Ministry of Public Works

2010). Toll roads are authorised by the Toll Road Management Agency under the

Ministry of Public Works. The funding and the provision for toll roads are usually

awarded to private entities. On the other hand, the Directorate General of Bina

Marga, also under the Ministry of Public Works, is the central authoritative body for

the management of non-toll roads. Road infrastructure projects under this

arrangement are planned and financed by the central government.

Basically, the road infrastructure investment needs are influenced by three

factors as follows:

population – the larger the population, the greater amount of road

infrastructure needed

the size of an area of the occupied population


per capita income of the population.

The demand and supply of road infrastructure projects remain the government‟s

concern and priority. According to Soemardi and Pribadi (2010), the limited finance,

management and technical capability of the central government has resulted in its

inability to keep up with the ever-increasing road infrastructure demand. The growth

of new road has been very slow, and the quality and serviceability of the existing

road system are gradually declining. According to data recorded at the Directorate of

Bina Marga-Ministry of Public Works, there are 38,500 kilometres of national roads.

The length of roads currently provided is inadequate when compared to the entire

Indonesian country area. In addition, the condition of the national roads is reported to

be deteriorating. By the end of 2007, 6% of national roads were in poor condition.

From a total of 34,628 kilometres of national road networks in 2009, about 19% were

considered to be in poor condition, and it was estimated that by the end of 2010,

about 30% of all roads will reach the end of their service life (Ministry of Public

Works , 2010) .

Despite the limitations of its resources, the government fully realises the

important role of road infrastructure provision for the whole country. For example,

the Directorate General of Bina Marga allocated 28 trillion rupiah in 2011 to build

new national roads and improve the national roads that were in badly damaged

condition (Soemardi & Wirahadikusumah, 2009). The government adopted a general

plan to review periodically the composition of toll roads and non-toll national road

infrastructure. The review has been undertaken in accordance with the development

plan for the region and based on the applicable laws and regulations. By the end of

2014, the general planned amount of non-toll national road infrastructure is 4500

kilometres and for the toll national roads the amount is 2015.35 kilometres (Dardak

2005). This large provision of both toll and non-toll roads calls for closer

examination of how they can be successfully delivered and drives the need for more

innovative solutions including a review of the project delivery system (Soemardi &

Wirahadikusumah, 2009).


2.4.2 Current Project Delivery System in Indonesian Road Infrastructure

Projects

For decades, the method of project delivery system employed by the Directorate

General of Bina Marga-Ministry of Public Works has been the traditional design-bid-

build (Soemardi & Pribadi, 2010; Trigunarsyah, 2001). DBB is a project delivery

system whereby the client contracts the designer for design and then separately

contracts the contractor to perform the construction (USDOT Federal Highway

Administration 2006). It means that the design and construction have different

contracts. In this delivery system, the designer and constructor are employed under

different contracts. Firstly, the designer makes the design or plans and specifications

and then the owner contracts a general contractor to carry out the construction. The

contractor may then subcontract the construction to another general contractor.

Rahadian (2009) asserted that the Indonesian road infrastructure project

delivery system is more conservative than other construction services such as the

manufacturing industry. Even though construction technology has evolved into

advanced technology and innovative development, the Indonesian road infrastructure

project procurement still used the traditional DBB project delivery system. Rahadian

(2009) provides some reasons for the popularity of the DBB. The advantages

include having a fair system for the contractors, having the design engineering

working directly for the owner, adherence to legal precedents that have been

established over time, insurance and bonding mechanisms are well-defined, and

absence of legal barriers in procurement and professional licensing (WYDOT 2002).

However, the DBB approach also has several constraints such as: requiring lengthy

periods; resulting in excess costs; resulting in outcomes that are inadequate for

owners in terms of quality and time; limiting the contractor‟s input into the design,

construction method and quality specification, which can result in conflict; requiring

extra staff in managing the design phase, preparing construction, construction phase

and post-construction; slower project completion; and involving the client in

conflicts and dispute (Rahadian 2009; Levy 2006).

Several other studies have shown that the DBB performance was inferior

when compared to alternative project delivery systems (Ibbs et al. 2003; Gransberg et


al. 2006; Hale et al. 2009). In addition, DBB stakeholders are more litigious than DB

stakeholders (WYDOT 2002). In DBB, the owner must manage two contracts that

have the possibilities to conflict. Since the use of the traditional DBB is prevalent in

the delivery of road infrastructure projects in Indonesia (Soemardi & Pribadi, 2010) ,

the weakness of the DBB project delivery system also prevails in Indonesia.

Therefore, other alternative project delivery systems should be explored.

Due to the weaknesses and constraints of the DBB project delivery system, it is

necessary for the Directorate General of Bina Marga-Ministry of Public Works to

consider an alternative project delivery system. An alternative project delivery

system must be able to overcome the weaknesses of the traditional DBB approach.

Currently, DB is used in many countries for both public and private sectors.

Likewise, DB is an emerging delivery system in road infrastructure projects. DB has

been successfully implemented as a method in highway and other transportation

project (Gransberg & Senadheera, 1999). For example, as discussed previously,

Gransberg (2003) studied the implementation of DB in road infrastructure in 15

states in the US and found that it was both effective and efficient. Similarly, in

another study in 2003, it was reported that in the 21 out of 50 US state departments

of transportation that had adopted the DB project delivery system to deliver highway,

the projects were successfully implemented.

Indonesia should therefore consider using a DB project delivery system in the

delivery of its road infrastructure projects. Both better performance and success in

implementing DB should be the key motivators for the adoption by the Directorate

General of Bina Marga-Ministry of Public Works to apply it. Therefore, the DB

project delivery system is perceived as an appropriate project delivery system to

address the problems and the conditions of Indonesian road infrastructure as it entails

faster provision.


2.4.3 Use of the DB Project Delivery System in Indonesia

In Indonesia, the DB project delivery system was used for the first time in 1974

(Yuwono 2007). Since then, the DB project delivery system has been implemented in

the private sector and projects held by state-owned enterprises such as:

process industry (petrochemical-pharmaceutical production facilities; oil, gas

and energy production facilities; mineral and mining production facilities)

manufacturing and fabrication industries including all the work supporting oil

and gas industry

non-civil infrastructure (supply of electric power generation; transmission and

distribution systems)

civil infrastructure (high rise buildings, ports and water resources).

However, so far, there have been no significant reviews associated with the

implementation of the DB project delivery system.

In the 1970s there were four DB contractors working for oil and gas. The

Mrica hydro power plant was the sole power infrastructure project that used the DB

system. The DB team from Mrica plant was a joint operation between one

Indonesian company and a group of companies from the UK. In 1982, an association

of national integrated construction service companies was established with the name

of Association of Industrial Development Companies (GP3I) and later in 1993 it was

renamed the Association of Indonesian Design Build National Companies

(GAPENRI). GAPENRI is open to all local or foreign DB and engineering

procurement and construction (EPC) companies. In 1997, there were 15 DB

contractor companies and, at the time of writing, there were 32 DB contractor

companies.

The DB project delivery system is mentioned in the Indonesian Government

Law No. 18, 1999 on Construction Services Regulation, whereby Section 16 clause 3

states that design, construction and control services can be integrated with regard to


cost, advanced technologies and high risk. It is also stated in the Indonesian

Government Regulation No. 29, 2000 on Construction Service Implementation (i.e.

Section 13 states that construction project service procurement can be delivered by

an integrated approach); No 59, 2010 ( amendment of Indonesian Government

Regulation No. 29, 2000); No. 54, 2000 on Government Good and Service

Procurement; and No.72, 2012 (amendment of Indonesian Regulation No. 54, 2010).

These laws and regulations indicate that the DB project delivery system is attractive

and its implementation is allowed.

Despite being approved in the legislation and regulation, the DB delivery

system has not been implemented in road infrastructure projects. Therefore there is a

need to examine how the DB system can be implemented successfully in road

infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

2.4.4 Stakeholders in Indonesian Road Infrastructure

Infrastructure in its development involves various parties/stakeholders. The

stakeholders can be defined as individuals and organisations which are actively

involved in the projects or whose interests may be affected as a result of project

execution or project completion (Munteanu et al. 2007; El-Gohany et al. 2006;

Project Management Institute 2008). Project stakeholders are groups or individuals

who have a stake in, or expectation of, a project‟s performance and include clients,

project managers, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, funding bodies, users and the

community at large (Newcombe 2003).

Each stakeholder has their own interest, therefore their views and perceptions

on the potential implementation of DB project delivery system may vary. Mostly, the

stakeholders‟ perceptions are derived from their own main concerns and perceived

benefits. Accordingly, the level of understanding of the DB project delivery system

implementation is important.

The stakeholders are interdependent and in one way or another affect each

other when undertaking a project. However, their interdependence and interests vary


according to different development phases over the life of a project (Lim 2009).

Infrastructure stakeholders cover a wide range of people and organisations, bringing

together a vast array of skills as well as disciplinary capabilities necessary for the

implementation of infrastructure projects (Lim 2009).

El-Gohany et al. (2006) classified infrastructure stakeholders into three types:

Responsible stakeholders, referring to an organisation or individual who has

some degree of responsibility or liability with regard to the development

process

Impacted stakeholders, referring to an organisation or individual who is

directly or indirectly affected by the development process

Interested stakeholders, referring to an organisation or individual who is not

directly impacted by the project, but who would like to participate and

provide his or her opinion in the infrastructure development process.

Project stakeholders can be classified into direct and indirect stakeholders (McManus

2004). Direct stakeholders can be divided into primary and secondary stakeholders.

Primary stakeholders include those who have power, authority, responsibilities or

claims over the resources. These are central to any project initiative. Secondary

stakeholders are those with an indirect interest in the outcome. Indirect stakeholder

can be divided into external stakeholders and extended stakeholders. External

stakeholders are groups recognised as impacting on a project but not being a direct

part of the project team, while extended stakeholders are individuals who do not fit

one of the previous groups (Trigunarsyah and Skitmore 2010).

The infrastructure development process involves many issues such as planning,

providing important services to the public and necessary access to land during

construction (Lim, 2009). According to Neutze (1997), governments have

entitlement to provide services, governments have the right to provide these services,

need to exercise their powers to provide the necessary land and access, and have the


responsibility to ensure that they are provided at an acceptable quality and at a

reasonable cost to all citizens.

The stakeholders involved in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia consist

of owner (government), contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, suppliers, local

communities and end-users. The owners, consultants and contractors are responsible

stakeholders who have some degree of responsibility or liability with regard to the

development process. Impacted stakeholders include the suppliers, local

communities, end-users, other government institutions, who are directly or indirectly

affected by the development process. Although the members of academic institutions

are not directly impacted by the project, they can participate and provide their

opinion during the infrastructure development process. This study is based on the

perspective of the owner (government), as such a system has not been implemented

in road infrastructure yet. The stakeholders from government that are involved in the

road infrastructure projects are:

Ministry of Public Works which has authority in road infrastructure project

development.

National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) which is

government institution in charge of carrying out government duties in the

area of national development planning.

The Construction Services Development Board (LPJK) which is an

institution that assists the government in conducting education and training

in the construction area; performs registration of construction workers,

which includes classification, qualification and certification of job skills

and expertise; performs registration of construction service companies; and

encourages and enhances the roles of arbitration, mediation and expert

appraisers in the field of construction services.


2.5 FACTORS FOR PROMOTING THE DB PROJECT DELIVERY

SYSTEM

Many researchers have discussed the topic of the success factors for the DB projects

and generic projects. It seems that limited research has examined factors that can

promote the DB project delivery system for owners who will implement the system

for the first time. This section aims to identify factors promoting the DB project

delivery system. These factors are expected to encourage project owners to

implement the DB project delivery system. The factors are also expected to

overcome the barriers in implementing the DB project delivery system.

2.5.1 Regulation

Selection of the design-build project delivery system without modification to current

statutes and regulations can result in consequences that are contrary to the public

interest. Consequently, public agencies are seeking statutory and regulatory changes

to overcome some of the barriers to implementing DB. Despite these statutory and

regulatory barriers, DB may nevertheless be considered a viable system for project

delivery. Clearly, it is an attractive system, as DB has been used in the US, and is in

more frequent use in other parts of the world, in both the public and private sectors

(National Society of Professional Engineers 1995).

Although DB may not be expressly forbidden by statute, neither may it be

expressly authorised. Due to the absence of this authorisation, some public officials

may be reluctant to select project delivery systems that step outside of traditional

bounds. Accordingly, statutory language that expressly authorises DB may be

appropriate if a government wishes to encourage its use. Each unit of government

should carefully review applicable laws prior to initiating a DB procurement to

satisfy legislative requirements, and to assure the potential design-builder, that such

procurement is appropriate (National Society of Professional Engineers, 1995).


It can be said that the benefits cannot be achieved until the legislation allows

the use of such a system. Getting the detailed legislation depends on the writing of

legislation and the approval process which can satisfy all of the stakeholders.

In Indonesia, according to the Indonesian Government Law No. 18, 1999, an

integrated project delivery system is an attractive and permissible system. It means

that it is possible to implement the DB as it is an integrated project delivery system,

although this is not written explicitly. Therefore, an adjustment of the regulation is

needed so that the regulation is explained in more detail.

According to Hanna et al. (2008) and Esquire (2011), the main items that

should be included in more detailed DB regulations include:

Definition of the terms of DB

DB generalities including the number of projects that can be undertaken,

the value of the projects, which department is responsible, and the explicit

authority to use DB

The DB criteria such as the suitability of projects for using the DB project

delivery system or when to use the DB project delivery system

Procurement process until contract process

Licensing for the DB entity.

Moreover, Gurry and Smith (1995) highlighted that it is important for risk to be

allocated. Risk is an inherent part of the construction industry and will be present in

every project. Therefore, risk also needs to be explained in more detail. The

identification of risk and its equitable allocation is important since the clients have

become increasingly concerned about the extent of risk they are exposed to

(Akintoye, 1994; Chua et al., 1999). Generally, there are three strategies involved in

risk management: eliminating risk, transferring risk, and accepting risk. According to

ASCE (1980), the fundamental principles of risk management are:


Risk should fit with those parties best able to evaluate, control, bear the

cost, and benefit from the assumption of risks

Many risks and liabilities may be shared between parties

Every risk has an associated, unavoidable cost which must to be assumed

in the project process.

The Construction Industry Institute (1986) conducted studies and highlighted

that in the risk allocation, the ideal contract assigns each risk to the parties who are

best able to manage and minimise the risk and who can recognise the unique or

exclusive conditions of the project. The study also found that every project should be

assessed to determine allocation based on considerations that finally reduce the total

cost of project risk (Construction Industry Institute 1986).

The ultimate goal of risk allocation is to assign the risks to the party that is best

able to manage them. Proper risk allocation will lead to lower costs and better

achievement of project goals (AASHTO, 2008).

Prior to instituting the implementation of the DB project delivery system,

legislative authority needs to be obtained (Migliaccio, 2007). In Indonesia, by

legislative authority, the Directorate General Bina Marga-Ministry of Public Works

as client/agency should be given authority to implement the DB project delivery

system. The authority which is delegated to the client/agency should be possessed to

ensure the successful implementation of construction projects (Pitagorsky, 1998).

Therefore, comprehensive legislative authority for implementing the DB project

delivery system must be gained.

The contractual issue in the DB project delivery system is also important for

the success of the project itself (Akintoye, 1994). There are three methods of the DB

contract award, namely, low bid, best value, and adjusted score. The best value

method is the most flexible (Gransberg & Senedheera, 1999). In the DB project

delivery system conducted in the public sector, a lump sum contract with a

competitive award is generally required so that the commitment to a fixed price can


be established earlier, although theoretically any typical payment of contract (e.g.,

lump sum, cost-plus) and any method of award (i.e., competitive or negotiated) can

be used with the DB project delivery system (Molenaar et al. 1999). The DB contract

has variations of contractual arrangements (Tenah 2000). The four frequently used

partnership arrangements are designer-led DB, builder-led DB, joint venture, and in-

house DB.

The selection of contractors is considered to be a significant aspect in

achieving success in DB projects (Deakin, 1999; Chan, 1996). The prequalification is

necessary to make an initial assessment of the interested parties‟ suitability to

undertake the works. The scoring system should be formalised and repeatable to

avoid injustice (Molenaar et al., 1999). To implement the DB project delivery

system, the procurement and tendering procedures have to be regulated. There are

three methods for selection of the contractor, namely, one-step, two-step, and

qualification-based.

As a result, the factors promoting the DB project delivery system in road

infrastructure projects which are associated with regulations are:

legislative authority

adjustment of regulation on project characteristics

Adjustment of regulation on contractual arrangements

Availability of project risk approach to managing project risk

Adjustment of regulation on tendering system.


2.5.2 Capability of Client and Other Participants

A client can be defined as the person or firm responsible for commissioning and

paying for the design and construction of a facility (Kamara et al. 2000; Lam et al.

2004). In public projects which are authorised by government, the client/owner is the

government itself.

Clients/owners/agencies and other participants in the projects which are

delivered by the DB project delivery system are the key in implementing the DB

project delivery system. They should possess skills such as leading, planning,

organising and coordinating, and perform their capabilities (Smith and Wilkins 1996;

Lam et al. 2004; Yates 1995).

Clients/owners/agencies and other participants should also have a clear

understanding and sufficient knowledge regarding integration of the specialised

knowledge on the DB project delivery system (Songer and Molenaar 1996; Lam

2004). Clients have to possess human skills in coping with stress, and establishing

good relationships among project participants (Smith and Wilkins 1996). Design-

builders/contractors as a single entity need to have leadership skills to coordinate

both the design and construction works(Hemlin 1999; Lam et al. 2004).

Jergeas and Fahmy (2006) suggested strategies that can be used to overcome

the problems regarding lack of knowledge, experience, understanding and skill.

They suggested that the owners should be prepared to have an open mind, flexibility,

cooperation and trust and should pay attention to education and training. For

instance, the Minnesota Department of Transportation conducted training which

involved other state DOTs to share experience and lessons learned. The lack of

resources can be overcome by formal training and education with others who have

already implemented the DB project delivery system. Formal training can include

university courses, DB workshops and conferences.

Gaining expertise and experience among transportation agencies is a key

challenge. Transportation agencies should invest in DB training before attempting to

conduct their first design-build project. The training should include not only


transportation agency staff or personnel but also consulting engineers, construction

contractors and other stakeholders involved in the DB project delivery system

(USDOT Federal Highway Administration 2006; Gibson et al. 2007). Education

through seminars, training and workshops in the infrastructure field can be done by

inviting experts from other countries and divisions or organisations who have applied

the DB project delivery system. Similarly, pilot projects also need to be carried out to

gain experience for the owner and other parties involved in the DB project delivery

system. Gibson et al (2007) suggests selecting pilot projects that have a relatively

certain scope and contain well-known processes and technologies. For example, the

Texas Department of Transportation conducted a pilot project for investigating the

implementation of change in its project delivery strategy.

Clients/owners/agencies should also provide continuing education and training

opportunities so that their employees can improve their skills. This is particularly

important for the successful implementation of DB because it is a relatively new

system that challenges traditional ways of thinking and contracting procedures.

Because implementation of DB requires owners to adopt new procurement, financial,

and legal frameworks, the National Society of Professional Engineers (1995)

encourages owners to adopt human resource practices that prepare their employees to

meet these new challenges.

Factors that should be considered to promote the DB project delivery system in

relation to the capability of the participants involved in the system are:

Training on the DB system that is provided to agency staff and external

parties

Availability of pilot projects.


2.5.3 Management

Management is another factor that can influence the success of the DB project

delivery system (Smith and Wilkins 1996). Management by the client/owner/agency

can be considered as a factor can promote the potential implementation of the DB

project delivery system. Communication is one attribute of project management

strategies which determines the success of the DB project (Lam, 2004). Effective

communication is expected to support successful implementation of the DB project

delivery system. Communication can be done among staff or divisions of the

owner/client/agency. The aim of communication is to share knowledge in order to

implement the DB project delivery system (Gil et al. 2001). Knowledge sharing

relates to the exchange of knowledge and can be multidirectional and informal (King

2006). Communication is a means to share the tacit knowledge from skilled staff or

upper-level staff to other staff who do not possess adequate knowledge related to the

DB project delivery system. Also, in this sharing of knowledge, the senior staff of the

owner/client/agency who have DB knowledge and or past experience in executing

DB should be able to educate others and share knowledge with their junior staff

about the system. By sharing knowledge, for instance from experienced, skilled and

knowledgeable staff, participants may find it easier to articulate and convert the tacit

knowledge into explicit knowledge (Iansiti 1995).

As the DB project delivery system has not been implemented yet in

Indonesian road infrastructure projects, communication with external parties affected

by the DB implementation of such a system must be done. According to Migliaccio

(2007), the external parties affected by project delivery system change are informed

on change initiatives. These external parties can include industry providers, utilities

and local agencies. Therefore, socialisation and communication with the external

parties involved in the implementation of the DB project delivery system is essential.

Lack of information on the change initiative and on the new system can trigger

misinformation about the new system and can lead to resistance.

The availability of the owner‟s staff is important. As the DB project delivery

system has a high speed process, the owner is challenged to keep staff aligned to the

project needs. Based on the recommendation from the Texas DOT, in implementing


the new system, the owners are expected to increase the presence of personnel with

DB experience, provide personnel with high-level expertise in their respective

technical area and select individuals who are able to work under pressure, to be

flexible and to multi-task. It needs to be ensured that staff of the owner/client/agency

are available for implementing project delivery system change (Migliaccio, 2007).

Therefore, sufficient staff or personnel to implement the DB project delivery system

should be allocated.

It would not an easy task to implement the DB project delivery system,

especially amongst the staff of the owner because such a system has not been

implemented yet in Indonesian road infrastructure projects. Perceptions of the change

can vary greatly. Some people are willing to accept new ideas, others are not. It is

expected that acceptance by staff can avoid the obstacles in implementation

(Migliaccio, 2007). Hence, acceptance of change by staff of the owner is necessary.

The agency‟s management vision and support for implementing the DB project

delivery system are essential to promote the DB project delivery system. According

to Migliaccio (2007), the support and vision of the agency‟s management is a factor

in successful project delivery system change. AASHTO (2008) highlighted that

many agencies have found that creating the DB program requires champions within

the agency. The role of these champions is to advocate for the delivery method.

Moreover, the key to overcoming barriers in implementing the project delivery

system change is leadership (Hanna et al., 2008). With any change, champions are

also needed to implement the new system. Hence, it is expected that support from

upper management of the owner can influence staff and other parties to support the

DB implementation.

Migliaccio (2007) argues that allocating insufficient resources to implementing

change constitutes a barrier to implementation, as acceptance of change by the

owner‟s staff and agency‟s management vision and support for

adopting/implementing DB are essential to promote the DB project delivery system.

It is expected that acceptance by staff can avoid the obstacles in implementation and

support from upper management of the owner can influence staff and other parties to

support the DB implementation.


Premised on the review above, the factors promoting the DB project delivery

system with regard to management by owner/client are:

communication and knowledge sharing among staff of project owner

to facilitate the DB

socialisation and communication with external parties affected by the

DB system

availability of owner‟s staff for implementing DB

acceptance of change by the owner‟s staff

agency‟s management vision and support for adopting/implementing

the DB.

2.5.4 External Conditions

As a relatively new and unfamiliar system in the Indonesian construction industry

particularly in road infrastructure projects, the conditions or circumstances beyond

the direct involvement of the owner/client/agency can contribute to the potential

implementation of the DB. Support from contractor companies is a vital requirement

in delivering the project (Munns and Bjeirmi 1996; Lam et al. 2004). Support and

acceptance by industry providers can contribute to the implementation of the change

program through the involvement of the industry providers (Migliaccio et al., 2008).

As the partner during the implementation of the project, participation of the industry

provider can provide input into the implementation of the new system. Relations with

industry also have an effect on the project success (Beale & Freeman, 1991; Lam,

2004). Therefore, in implementing the DB project delivery system as a new system,

support from the industry providers is needed.

Migliaccio (2007) observed that it is not essential for the levels of support and

acceptance for delivery system change to be strong. Other parties or stakeholders in


this context involve local agencies, other governmental institutions, utilities, cities

and counties. However, if there is resistance to the new system from these other

parties or stakeholders, then obstacles to implementation effort might arise.

In implementing a project, in particular in the context of the DB project

implementation, the external conditions can be associated with the project

environment. Akinsola et al. (1997) described the “environment” as all external

influences on the construction process, including social, political, and technical

systems. Ming (2005) opined that the physical, political, social and economic

environments are factors that can influence the success of DB projects. Weather

conditions are an example of physical environment factors that may have an impact

on the success of project execution (Beale & Freeman, 1991). If the weather supports

the project execution, be being constantly fine, it is believed that the possibility of

completing projects on time can be achieved (Lam, 2004). Political factors which

relate to the elected government are considered because the elected government may

show commitment and support in terms of funding that can determine the success of

the DB project (Lam, 2004; Pearson & Skues, 1999). Social environment factors

such as social or public opinions on the design of a construction project are

considered to determine the success of the DB project (Liu & Walker, 1998). On the

other hand, the public is not believed to significantly provide active support for

implementing a new plan or system although lack of active support or acceptance by

the public constitutes a barrier to implementing a new system (Migliaccio, 2007).

Economic factors such as market imperfection, disequilibrium prices, inflation and

prevailing marketplace also attract much attention (Okpala 1991; Lam et al. 2004).

Therefore, external condition factors include:

support and acceptance by other parties or stakeholders

support and acceptance by industry providers

political environment

social environment

economic environment


physical environment.

In summary, the factors promoting the DB project delivery system can be grouped

into four categories of factors, namely, regulation, capability of client and other

stakeholders, management, and external conditions (Figure 2.7). Each of these main

factors consists of several factors.

Figure 2.7: Factors promoting the potential implementation of the DB project delivery system

2.6 SUMMARY

This chapter reviewed the literature related to the DB project delivery system both in

a global and Indonesian context. It also reviewed the concept of the DB project

delivery system, the advantages of such a system and successful implementation of

the DB project delivery system compared to the traditional DBB project delivery

system. Considering the importance of fast provision in road infrastructure, the

review of the literature indicates justification of the need to implement the DB

project delivery system in Indonesian road infrastructure projects.

To enable the implementation of the DB project delivery system, several

factors that can promote its potential implementation have been identified. These


factors are also expected to overcome the barriers to implementing the DB. The

common barriers and factors in terms of implementation of the DB project delivery

system currently faced by Directorate General Bina Marga- Ministry of Public

Works are likely the same as those which have been experienced by

clients/owners/agencies in countries elsewhere in the world.

While it is acknowledged that there has been little research on the DB project

delivery system particularly in the Indonesian context, there has also been limited

research into the hierarchy and relationships among the factors that can promote the

potential implementation of the DB project delivery system. To address these

research gaps, the present study aims to study the potential implementation of the DB

project delivery system. The expected output of the thesis is a framework for DB

potential implementation, which would provide the basis for implementing the DB

project delivery system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

Chapter 3:Research Design 57

Chapter 3: Research Design

3.1 INTRODUCTION

As explained in Chapter 2, the design-build (DB) project delivery system is an

attractive form for delivering road infrastructure projects. This system has

advantages over the current project delivery system in Indonesia. However, this

system has not been implemented in Indonesian road infrastructure projects. The

absence of the DB implementation may contribute to the lengthy delays in the

provision of road infrastructure. The implementation of DB has been a major

research focus in the construction industry in the US and UK, South Korea, China

and Hong Kong.

This chapter discusses the design of the author‟s own research on the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system in Indonesia. First, the research

problem is described. This includes a presentation of the research framework of the

research, which led to the establishment of the research questions. This is followed

by an explanation of the selection of the research methods to answer these questions.

Finally, the selected research methods and data analysis are discussed.

3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As discussed in Chapter 2, road infrastructure plays an important role in the

economic growth of a nation. Economic growth requires the adequate availability

and good condition of road infrastructure. The Indonesian Ministry of Public Works

reported that the availability of road infrastructure was inadequate if the entire

Indonesian area was considered. Moreover, many roads were in damaged condition.

These circumstances can hinder economic growth. Therefore, project delivery that

can offer faster provision is needed.

At the time of writing, the traditional design-bid-build system is the sole

project delivery system in road infrastructure projects under government authority in

58 Chapter 3:Research Design

Indonesia. However, such a system has drawbacks. Lengthy periods, cost overruns

and outcomes that cannot satisfy quality requirements are the weakness of this

system. Therefore, an alternative project delivery system needs to be adopted to

expedite road infrastructure provision. One such alternative is the design-build

project delivery system.

The DB project delivery system executes design and construction in one

contract. This characteristic leads to benefits compared to the DBB project delivery

system. Many countries across the world have adopted this system because of the

benefits.

Even though the DB system is an attractive alternative, it is not an easy task to

implement an unfamiliar system in Indonesia. Many studies have identified the

barriers related to implementation of the DB system. These barriers can potentially

hinder the DB system potential implementation. Subsequently, an understanding of

the factors that can promote the potential implementation of the DB project delivery

system is sought. These factors are also expected to overcome the barriers. To

implement the DB system, it is necessary to determine what factors are of main

concern. Moreover, every factor should not stand alone, but should have an effect on

every other factor. By discovering the hierarchy and relationships amongst the

factors it is expected that an in-depth understanding of the DB project delivery

system implementation can be gained. This argument is summarised in Figure 3.1

showing the research framework.

Figure 3.1: Research framework

Identifying

stakeholders‟

understanding of:

- Definition of the

DB

- Advantages of the

DB

Identifying factors that

can promote the

implementation of the

DB:

- Regulation

- Capability of client

and other

participants

- Management

- External conditions

Proposed framework

for implementing the

DB project delivery

system:

- Hierarchy and

relationships among

promoting factors

Identifying the barriers

to the implementation

of the DB:

- Regulation

- Client capabilities

- Capabilities of other

stakeholders

- Adaptability


The implementation of the DB system in developed countries and developing

countries is not similar. The implementation is likely to vary depending on the

characteristics of the construction industry in a particular country. Therefore, to

implement the DB project delivery system in Indonesian road infrastructure projects,

several questions need to be answered. These questions are:

First, what are the stakeholders‟ understandings of the DB project delivery

system?

Second, what are the barriers to implementing the DB project delivery

system and the factors that can promote the potential implementation of

the DB project delivery system in road infrastructure projects in

Indonesia?

Third, what are the relationship and hierarchy among the promoting

factors?

To answer these research questions, a pragmatic paradigm which uses

complementary qualitative and quantitative methods is required. The inquiry is based

on the assumption that diverse types of data collection best facilitate a

comprehensive investigation of a research problem.

3.3 SELECTION OF RESEARCH METHOD

Specific research methods for collecting, analysing and interpreting data should be

carefully chosen. The selection of the research method is not an easy task. Every

method is open to criticism, and it is the researcher's task to determine which method

can produce “better” results (Leming 1997).

Data collection is an important phase in any research study. It is the process of

gathering information. In addition, it is a communication process which involves data

transfer from respondent to researcher (Fellows and Liu 2008). Therefore, it is

necessary to develop communication to collect the information.


There are five types of research method, namely experiment, survey, archival

analysis, history, and case study (Yin 2009). These methods depend on several

factors including the type of research question posed, the extent of control an

investigator has over the actual behaviour or phenomenon being studied and the

degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events. An overview of the

conditions created by these factors and their links to different research methods is

presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Relevant situation for different research methods (Cosmos Corporation cited in Yin (2009))

CONDITION

METHOD (1)

Form of research

question

(2)

Requires control of

behavioural events?

(3)

Focuses on

contemporary events?

Experiment How, why? Yes Yes

Survey Who, what, where,

how many,

how much?

No Yes

Archival analysis Who, what, where,

how many,

how much?

No Yes/No

History How, why? No No

Case study How, why? No Yes

The first research question in the present study is a “what” type of question,

that is, a question that measures the prevalence of people‟s beliefs. Such a question is

aimed at collecting data or information about characteristics, actions, attributes,

people‟s lives, or the opinions of a group of people, referred to as a

population(O'Leary 2004; Dillman 2007). Yin (2009) suggests that a survey is the

preferred method for this type of question. This method is used to answer the second

research question. In particular, this research employs the Delphi questionnaire

survey. There are some justifications for conducting a Delphi study as follows

(Martino 1973; Masini 1993; Chan et al. 2001; Linstone and Turoff 2002):

The Delphi study is suitable in fields that have no adequate historical data

for the use of other methods.


It is appropriate when the problem does not lend itself to precise analytical

techniques but can benefit from subjective judgement on a collective basis.

Even if collective judgements of experts are made up of subjective

opinions, this is considered to be more reliable than individual statements.

As a result, the Delphi study can extract a maximum amount of unbiased

information from a panel of experts.

Considering the inadequate historical data and the immaturity of DB project

delivery system implementation in Indonesian road infrastructure projects, it is

necessary to obtain the opinions and statements from experts. Therefore, the Delphi

study serves as an appropriate consensus-reaching method for addressing the first

and second research questions. Such a technique has been widely used in the

construction management area.

The third research question is also a “what” type of question. However, the

third research question deals with a complex issue, which requires analysing the

relationships between various factors and their hierarchy. According to Janes (1988),

any methodology for dealing with complex issues must be able to break the

complexity down into manageable chunks of information so that the human mind can

deal with it. Complex problems are not easy to identify. Some indications of a

complex problem are: the problem is difficult to define; the situation involves too

many issues that impact one another, such that it is not known where to start; the

problem is difficult to divide into manageable parts; the problem seems to be too

unwieldy; steps towards a solution may alter the main parameters of the problem;

and solutions require buy-in from several individuals or groups whereby these people

need to be persuaded of the importance of the problem and the effectiveness of the

solution.

The potential implementation of the DB project delivery system in Indonesia is

perceived as a complex issue as such of a system has not been implemented in

Indonesian road infrastructure projects. Therefore the relationships and hierarchy

among the promoting factors need to be examined. To achieve that, the third research

question posed in the present study was answered using a pair-wise comparison

questionnaire survey incorporating the Delphi technique. The reason for applying


this technique is that it is useful to deal with a complex issue. It assists to identify the

relationships and hierarchy among specific items which define a problem or an issue.

It can be used to address a number of problems within organisations in relation to

decision-making. This technique gathers the opinions of experts to provide a more

complete and better understanding. Implementing the DB project delivery system in

road infrastructure projects in Indonesia is not an easy task as it remains a debatable

issue among stakeholders. As such, it is believed to be a complex problem. Despite

this condition, the DB system is an attractive alternative for project delivery. In order

to deal with this issue, a more complete and better understanding regarding the

relationships and hierarchy of the factors that can encourage the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system is required. Table 3.2 provides a

summary of the research methods used in this research.

Table 3.2: Summary of selected research methods in this study

RESEARCH

PROBLEM

RESEARCH

QUESTION

RESEARCH

OBJECTIVE

RESEARCH

METHOD

How can the DB

be implemented?

What are the

stakeholders‟

understandings of the

DB system?

To review the

stakeholders‟

understanding of the DB

system

Survey (interview,

Delphi questionnaire

survey)

What are the barriers to

implementing the DB

system and the factors

that can promote the DB

potential implementation

To identify the barriers

to implementing the DB

system and the factors

that can promote the DB

potential implementation

Survey (interview,

Delphi questionnaire

survey)

What are the

relationships and

hierarchy among the

promoting factors?

To examine the

relationships and

hierarchy among the

factors that can promote

potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system

Survey (pair-wise

comparison survey)

3.4 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED RESEARCH METHOD

Given the research method employed in this research, this section provides a detailed

description of the main selected method, namely, a survey in which a Delphi

questionnaire survey and pair-wise comparison questionnaire survey (combined with


the Delphi technique) were conducted. This section describes both methods of data

collection. It includes an overview of the participants, instruments and data analysis

in each method.

3.4.1 Delphi Questionnaire Survey

This section elaborates the Delphi questionnaire survey used in this research. It

details the panel of experts, number of rounds, the content of the questionnaire and

the data analysis.

The purpose of this Delphi study in this research was to seek consensus on:

Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system.

Factors that obstruct and promote the potential implementation of the DB


The Delphi technique was initially developed by the RAND Corporation to

reach consensus amongst US military experts on a sensitive issue without face-to-

face discussion. The objective was to obtain the most reliable consensus of opinion

of a group of experts through a series of intensive questionnaires interspersed with

controlled opinion feedback (Linstone and Turoff 2002).

The Delphi method aims to establish the opinion of the expert group and

achieve consensus on particular issue, providing a means of synthesising information

from a wide range via experts (National Public Health, 2000). Moreover, the Delphi

study is a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process

is effective in allowing individuals to deal with complex problems (Linstone and

Turoff 2002; Akkermans et al. 2003).

Panel of Experts

Selection and identification of the panel of experts is crucial for conducting a Delphi

study (Grobbelaar 2007). The use of knowledge participants and an interest in the


topic influence the validity of the Delphi study (Goodman 1987; Yousuf 2007). The

participants have to possess knowledge of and expertise in questions and topics

posed by researchers. Mead and Moseley (2001) stated that experts can be defined in

a number of ways, such as their position in a hierarchy, public acknowledgement or

as recommended by other participants in the study. Kennedy (2004) suggested that

an expert is someone who is a specialist in the field or who has knowledge about a

specific subject. Rogers and Lopez (2002) in Hallowell and Gambatese (2010), stated

that the expert panel members have to meet at least two of the following criteria:

authorship, conference presenter, member of committee, employed in practice with

five years experience, and employed as a faculty member at an institute of higher

learning.

Since the information solicited in the present study required in-depth

knowledge and substantial experience of project delivery systems, particularly the

DB project delivery system, the following criteria were used to select the eligible

participants in this Delphi survey:

Experts who are in decision-making roles in organisations or institutions

associated with road infrastructure projects.

Experts who have been recently involved in road infrastructure projects.

Practitioners or stakeholders who are considered knowledgeable about

project delivery systems particularly the DB project delivery system and

have extensive working experience in the DB project delivery system.

Academics from universities who have extensive knowledge of all project

delivery system options, particularly the DB project delivery system.

The participants have to possess a commitment to multiple rounds in this

Delphi study. A group of experts was selected to provide opinions on the

understanding of the DB system, the barriers to implementing the DB system and the

factors that can promote the DB potential implementation.


In order to obtain valuable opinions, only practitioner/stakeholder/ academics

who met all the criteria were selected to sit on the panel of experts. The

recommended number of expert panel members to be selected varies. Rowe and

Wright (1999) indicated that the size of a Delphi panel has ranged from as low as

three to as high as 80. Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) suggested that the optimal

number of panel members is 12 to 15. This size is easily managed by a facilitator.

The particular number of members should be dictated by the characteristics of the

study and the availability of experts. The size of the panel should also take into

consideration that some panellists may decide to drop out of the study due to other

commitments (Hallowell and Gambatese 2010). On the other hand, Clayton (1997)

suggested that a panel should consist of 15 to 30 members. To ensure a sufficient

number of respondents for valid data gathering, 23 experts were identified and

invited to participate in the Delphi study in this research.

The Delphi Rounds

The Delphi study is an iterative process that requires several rounds of questionnaires

and feedback (Yousuf 2007). There is no standard number of rounds set for a Delphi

study. It can vary from two to seven (Rowe and Wright 1999; Adnan et al. 2003).

However, two to four iterations are common. Grisham (2009) suggested the rounds

can stop whenever the consensus has been reached. It is not based on the number of

rounds but can be based on the standard deviation or inter-quartile range (IQR).

Lang (1994) suggested that it can be beneficial to conduct an interview as an

introduction prior to conducting the Delphi study. In the present study, an interview

with several experts who had knowledge regarding the topic of the study being

undertaken was conducted prior to the Delphi study and it was expected that the

consensus could be reached in two rounds.

Questionnaire

The Delphi questionnaire aimed to elicit the panel‟s opinions with regard to the

stakeholders‟ understandings of the DB project delivery system, the barriers to

implementing the DB project delivery system, and the factors that can promote the


DB potential implementation in Indonesia. For round one, the questionnaire was

developed based on the preliminary interview results and the literature review. The

interview was intended to map the initial problem with regard to the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system. It also intended to gather the

experts‟ opinion on understanding of the DB project delivery system, the barriers to

implementing the DB project delivery system, and the factors that can promote the

DB potential implementation in Indonesia. Furthermore, the result of this

preliminary interview would be combined with the literature review to further

develop the Delphi questionnaire.

In this round, the experts were requested to indicate their agreement with

statements regarding the stakeholders‟ understandings of the DB project delivery

system, the barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system, and the factors

that can promote the DB potential implementation in Indonesia. To measure the

agreement, this questionnaire used a Likert-type scale. The Likert scale was

introduced as a scale and technique to measure attitudes (Rainer et al. 2007). This

scale is widely used in many studies. The Likert scale technique presents a set of

attitude statements.

A six-point Likert scale was used to assess the agreement of the participants,

although the six-point Likert scale is not used as frequently as a five-point or seven-

point Likert scale. All of these odd-numbered scales have a middle value that is often

labelled a neutral option. The neutral option can be seen as an easy option to take

when a respondent is unsure. This case often occurs in South-East Asian countries.

By removing a neutral option, the participants are compelled to make a decision.

Therefore, this study used a six-point Likert scale.

The six-point Likert scale consisted of 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3=

slightly disagree; 4= slightly agree; 5= agree; and 6= strongly agree. In relation to the

stakeholders‟ understanding aspect, the panel was asked to assess the concept and

advantages of the DB project delivery system. The concept of the DB system

consisted of the definition of the DB project delivery system, characteristics of the

DB procurement and contract, and characteristics of the DB project. The advantages


of the DB system consisted of shorter duration, lower cost, enhanced innovation and

better management.

The experts were then requested to indicate in the questionnaire their

agreement with statements regarding the barriers to implementing the DB system and

the factors that promote the DB potential implementation; these factors were derived

from preliminary interview and literature review. The barriers to implementing the

DB project delivery system consisted of four groups of barriers, namely, regulation,

client competencies, other stakeholder competencies, and adaptability. Based on

literature review, the factors that promote the DB system potential implementation

that can also overcome the barriers consisted of four groups of factors, namely,

regulation, capability of clients, management, and external conditions.

The experts were also invited to suggest new concepts, advantages, barriers

and factors which were not in the lists provided. In the last section of the

questionnaire, the participants could add comments about the answers that they had

provided.

For the second round of the Delphi survey, the questionnaire was developed

based on the results from the first round of Delphi survey. The participants were

given questions similar to those in the first round. However, the format of the

questionnaire was different. The experts were asked to consider the ratings that

resulted from the Delphi round one. They could answer “yes” or “no” to respond to

the questions. If they did not agree with the rating, they were asked to revise the

rating.

Data Analysis

Data was analysed after it was collected from the Delphi questionnaire survey. For

the interviews, the opinions of the interviewees were recorded. Subsequently, their

opinions were categorised and grouped under different headings. This allowed a

systematic and thorough analysis of the panel members‟ perceptions of the

stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system, the barriers to implementing the DB

system and the factors that promote DB potential implementation in Indonesia.


Furthermore, the results of these interviews and the literature review were used for

developing the Delphi questionnaire survey.

Upon completion of each round of Delphi survey, the questionnaire results

from the experts were immediately analysed. In the first round, this analysis included

calculation of the mean, median, mode and standard deviation of each stakeholder

understanding, barrier and factor. A median of 5 and above was implemented to

determine the high ratings of these three aspects. Standard deviation was calculated

to see the convergence; while, to see the trends in the responses, the mode was

calculated.

In round two whereby the questions were the same but presented in a different

way, the frequency, inter-quartile range and standard deviation were calculated.

Those values were used to measure the consensus among the experts. Consensus can

be achieved if the participants provide the same response at least 67% of the time

(Alexandrov et al. 1996), the inter-quartile deviation (IQD) is equal to or less than 1

and when there is a low value of standard deviation (Raskin 1994).

3.4.2 Pair-Wise Comparison Survey

A pair-wise comparison survey was conducted in order to develop a model using

interpretive structural modelling. Interpretive structural modelling was first proposed

by Warfield (1973). It enables individuals or groups to develop a map of the complex

relationships between many elements involved in a complex decision situation

(Charan et al. 2008). Interpretive structural modelling can break down complexity by

enabling an individual or a group to focus on the interrelations between two elements

in an issue at a time, without losing sight of the properties of the whole. ISM is often

used to provide a fundamental understanding of complex situations, as well as to put

together a course of action for solving a problem. The ISM process transforms

unclear, poorly articulated mental models of systems into visible, well-defined

models useful for many purposes (Ahuja et al. 2009).


Malone (1975) defined ISM as a process intended for use when it is desired to

utilise systematic and logical thinking to approach a complex issue and then to

communicate the results to others. ISM uses experts‟ practical experience and

knowledge to decompose a complicated system into several subsystems and

construct a multi-level structural model. The fundamental concepts of the process

are an “element set” and a “contextual relation”. The element set is identified within

some situational context, and the contextual relation is selected as a possible

statement of the relationships among the elements in a manner that is contextually

significant for the purposes of the inquiry. ISM is able to find a solution to complex

issues by allowing the person using it to focus on only two ideas at one time

(Alawamleh and Popplewell 2011). ISM is also designed to provide an approach

that is both logical and systematic when an issue that is complex is being considered,

and it is able to provide a tool which can bring order and direction to the complex

relations existing between a number of elements (Sage 1977; Singh et al. 2003).

ISM was described by Warfield (1990) as “a computer-assisted learning of

process that enables an individual or a group user to develop a structure or a map

showing interrelations among previously determined elements according to a

selected contextual relationship”. Furthermore, Waller (1983) asserts that ISM is a

method that transcends context, enabling it to be applied in any complex situation

whatever the content of that situation might be so long as it is possible to identify a

set of components and define a relevant contextual relation. These elements may

include qualitative and quantitative aspects which mean that it is possible to include

more than simple measurements. This feature means that ISM is a more flexible tool

than a number of other methods to conventional quantitative modelling and it is able

to provide a language for qualitative modelling in order to bring structure to

complexity and enable a group of users or individual users to map their thinking in

relation to an issue through the construction of an agreed structural model

(Alawamhleh 2010).

ISM was employed by Saxena et al. (1990) with regard to the Indian cement

industry in order to model the variables of energy conservation and they were able to

identify the key variables by the use of direct and indirect interrelationships between

them. ISM methodology was also applied by Sharma et al. (1995) in order to


establish a hierarchy of the necessary actions to be taken to achieve the objectives for

waste management in India in the future. Mandal and Deshmukh (1994) used ISM to

analyse some of the central criteria for vendor selection and have revealed how the

criteria are related and the levels of interrelatedness. They also categorised these

criteria in relation to their driving power and dependence.

The factors promoting the DB project delivery system identified in the

previous section might have overlaps and relationships that are sometimes difficult to

see. A more complete or comprehensive understanding of these factors and their

relationships can be reached through logical structure such as interpretive structural

model. ISM is a well-established methodology for identifying hierarchy and

relationships among specific items which define a problem or an issue (Sage, 1977;

Warfield, 2005). In the present study, the opinions from the group of experts were

used in developing the relationship matrix which was later used in the development

of the interpretive structural model.

ISM offers a method that helps the owner/client/agency to organise the

relations between a number of issues that may impact on decisions and, in order to

achieve this, it has been used to address a number of problems within organisations

in relation to decision-making. It has been in use as a technique to support the taking

of decisions over a substantial period, going back as far as the late 1960s and early

1970s (Bhargava and Power 2001). However, it is only very recently that it has been

applied and investigated by researchers in relation to a range of topical areas.

In this study, the aim of the ISM is to establish the relationships between the

factors promoting the DB project delivery system and also classify these factors

depending upon their driving and dependence power using the interpretive structural

model. The model will also help owners/clients/agencies to make better decisions

when implementing the DB project delivery system. Based on the result of the ISM,

the client/owner/agency can pay attention to the priority of the factors in order to

identify what factor needs to be of most concern. Moreover, ISM would also help to

develop the hierarchy based on the importance of each factor and provide a visual

representation of the situation. A practical tool for the Indonesian Government to

use is made available by this model to enable the relevant government to focus on


those factors that must be prioritised to establish successful implementation of the

DB project delivery system. If the client/owner/agency is able to understand the

factors promoting the DB project delivery system then they will also be better able to

deal with the barriers or at least plan for their occurrence.

Participants of the Pair-Wise Comparison Survey

In the pair-wise comparison survey, the opinion of the experts was also required.

There is no standard of minimal respondent numbers to meet the requirement.

However, all respondents selected have to possess knowledge and understanding of

the topic under investigation (Kingsley and Brown 2010; Grzybowska 2012).

Therefore, the experts involved in the Delphi questionnaire survey were requested to

participate in this survey.

Pair-Wise Questionnaire

Once the consensus was reached in the Delphi questionnaire, the factors that promote

the DB system potential implementation were identified. The pair-wise questionnaire

was developed based on the results of the Delphi questionnaire survey. The factors

that were highly rated as factors that can promote DB project delivery system

potential implementation were then used as specific items in this questionnaire.

In this questionnaire, the factors were not separated into group factors. The

respondents were asked to provide their opinion on the relationships among the

factors. They were asked to compare one factor to other factors and to choose a value

from the set (V, A, X and O) to represent their perception of the relationship between

two factors at each time.

The meaning of the V, A, X and O values was as follows:

V = if factor i will help achieve factor j

A = if factor j will help achieve factor i

X = if factors i and j will help achieve each other

O = if factors i and j will not help achieve each other or are unrelated.


Data Analysis

The data gathered from the pair-wise comparison survey was analysed using ISM to

identify the relationships among the factors and the hierarchy of the factors before

developing a model for the DB project delivery system potential implementation in

road infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

Further, the steps involved in this analysis were as follows:

Identifying the elements which were relevant to the problem or issue.

From the elements identified in the first step, establishing the contextual

relationship among them. This represents the relationship indicating

whether or not one element leads to another.

Developing a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of sources which

indicates a pair-wise relationship between sources of the system under

consideration.

Developing a reachability matrix from the SSIM, and checking the matrix

for transitivity. Transitivity of the contextual relation is a basic assumption

in ISM which states that if element A is related to element B, and B is

related to C, then A is necessarily related to C. The SSIM format is

transformed in the format of the reachability matrix by transforming the

information in each entry of the SSIM into 1s and 0s in the reachability

matrix.

Partitioning the reachability matrix obtained in the fourth step into

different levels.

Based on the relationships in the reachability matrix, removing the

transitive links and drawing a directed graph.

Constructing the interpretive structural model by replacing element nodes

with statements.


Reviewing the interpretive structural model developed in the seventh step

to check for conceptual inconsistency, and to make the necessary

modifications.

Analysis of strength of the influence among variables is conducted once an ISM

model is established. This analysis was introduced by Duperrin and Godget in 1973

(Alawamleh and Popplewell 2011) to study the diffusion of impacts through reaction

paths and loops for developing hierarchies for members of an element set. This

analysis can be used to identify and analyse the elements in a complicated system

(Warfield, 1990). Generally, the elements will be classified into four clusters of

autonomous, dependent, linkage and independent (driver) sources according to the

driving power and dependencies of all the elements (Ravi and Shankar 2005).

This analysis is also conducted to classify the factors and developed based on

the driving powers and dependencies which have been identified from the final

reachability matrix. Factors are then categorised based on their driving powers and

dependencies. The categories of the clusters are as follows:

Cluster 1 consists of the autonomous factors that have weak driving power

and weak dependence.

Cluster 2 consists of the independent factors that have strong driving

power but weak dependence.

Cluster 3 consists of the linkage factors that have strong driving power and

strong dependence.

Cluster 4 consists of the dependent factors that have weak driving power

but strong dependence.

An example of the driving power and dependence diagram can be seen in

Figure 3.1.


Figure 3.2: Example of Driving Power- Dependence Diagram

In Figure 3.1 we can see the classifications of the factors. The horizontal axis line

indicates the dependence of the factors and the vertical ordinate line shows the

driving power of the factors.

This research project followed guideline provided by QUT Research ethics.

This involved the ascertaining of approval and clearance for the research topic, the

data collection methods, the instruments, material used, the site and location, the

sample of population, information required, treatment of the data, the method of

analysis, confidentiality of issues, dissemination of information and results and

intellectual, property and copyright issues.

Covering letters were attached to the questionnaires explaining the purpose of

the research, giving assurance of confidentiality, outlining the benefits of the study

and soliciting voluntary participation by the sample population. In addition, optional

consent forms for voluntary participation were provided to the potential respondents

(see Appendices A & B). Each individual and organisation was required to

understand and agree with the terms and conditions before participating in the

session. Fulfilment with other requirements was confirmed in consultation with the


individual participants, and with the guidance and advice of the principal research

supervisor.

3.5 SUMMARY

The chapter has highlighted the research methods employed in conducting this

research. The Delphi questionnaire survey and pair-wise comparison questionnaire

survey were adopted to collect the data. Each research method was justified to

achieve the research objectives. Explanation of each method, including participants,

the number of rounds for conducting the Delphi study, the questionnaire content and

the data analysis were also clearly defined. All of these formed a comprehensive

overview of the results that were derived. These provided a strong platform for the

development of the model for DB potential implementation. Detailed explanations of

the conduct of each data collection method and the results are presented in Chapter 4

and Chapter 5, respectively.

Chapter 4:Potential Implementation of the DB System: Stakeholders‟ Understanding, Barriers and Promoting

Factors 77

Chapter 4: Potential Implementation of the

DB System: Stakeholders’

Understanding, Barriers and

Promoting Factors

4.1 INTRODUCTION

As explained in the previous chapter, this research employs the Delphi survey to

answer the first and second research questions. The purpose of the Delphi survey in

this research was to: (1) review the stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project

delivery system; (2) identify the barriers to implementing the DB project delivery

system; and (3) identify the factors that can promote DB potential implementation.

This chapter explains in detail the process and the results of the Delphi survey.

It begins by providing an overview of the Delphi process. This includes the profiles

of the expert panel members. Next, the results of the Delphi questionnaire regarding

stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system are presented. In this section, the

format of each round of the Delphi survey is outlined before presenting the analysis

and results. Then, the results of the Delphi questionnaire survey regarding the

barriers to implementing the DB system and the factors that promote DB potential

implementation are presented. Finally, the findings of the Delphi survey are

summarised.

4.2 DELPHI PROCESS

This section describes the Delphi survey process. It includes details about the panel

of experts, the format of the questionnaire, and data analysis in each round.

78Chapter 4:Potential Implementation of the DB System: Stakeholders‟ Understanding, Barriers and Promoting Factors

4.2.1 Formation of Panel Experts

As stated in Chapter 3, prior to Delphi questionnaire development, preliminary

information gathering was conducted through interviews. The purpose of this

preliminary information gathering was to obtain information on what was observed.

The information sought was initial information about the DB project delivery system.

This was done by interviewing several senior officials in various institutions. All of

these interviewees held director or top management positions and decision-making

roles in their respective institution.

An invitation letter was sent through email to several experts whose details

were derived from the Ministry of Public Works, National Development Planning

Agency and Construction Services Development Board (LPJK). Seven were

successfully interviewed (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Interviewee details

No Name Sector Organisation

1 A Government Ministry of Public Works

2 B Government Ministry of Public Works

3 C Government Ministry of Public Works

4 D Government Ministry of Public Works

5 E Government Ministry of Public Works

6 N Government National Development Planning Agency

7 Q Private Construction Services Development Board

The interviewees were asked their opinion about the DB project delivery

system including the concept and its advantages. They were also asked to identify the

barriers which hinder the DB potential implementation and the factors that can

encourage this system in Indonesian road infrastructure projects. The results from the

interviews provided a general picture of the DB project delivery system in relation to

road infrastructure project provision in Indonesia. The results were also brought

forward to the next stage of this research, namely, the Delphi questionnaire.

Chapter 4: Potential Implementation of the DB System: Stakeholders‟ Understanding, Barriers and Promoting

Factors 79

Once the initial opinions from the interviewees were obtained, the Delphi

questionnaire was developed based on those opinions and the literature review. In

this research, as discussed in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4), the recommended number of

panel members varies from 3 to 80 or 12 to 15. It is also important to anticipate that

not all the experts may complete all rounds of the Delphi survey due to fatigue or

busy schedules. Therefore, to ensure a sufficient number of respondents for valid

data gathering, 23 stakeholders who met the criteria for the panel of experts were

identified and invited to participate in the Delphi survey. The names of these experts

were obtained from the Ministry of Public Works (the main stakeholder in this

research as the problem was mainly viewed from the client perspective), National

Development Planning Agency, General Inspectorate of Ministry of Public Works,

Construction Services Development Board, and universities (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Number of experts invited to participate and who agreed to participate in the Delphi survey

Criteria of Expert Panel Sector No. of Experts

Invited Agreed

Experts who are in decision-making

roles in organisations or institutions

associated with road infrastructure

projects

Ministry of Public Works 13 12

Experts who have been recently

involved in road infrastructure projects

National Development Planning

Agency 2 2

Academics from universities who have

extensive knowledge of all project

delivery system options, particularly the

DB project delivery system

Universities 3 2

Practitioners or stakeholders who are

considered knowledgeable about

project delivery systems particularly the

DB project delivery system and have

extensive working experience in the DB

project delivery system

Construction Services

Development Board 5 4

Total 23 20

Twenty experts expressed their interest and agreed to participate in the Delphi

study (a total of 87%). The response rate indicates that the research received a high

level of attention from the invited experts. Similar to the interviewees, the

participating experts in this Delphi survey also held director or top management

positions and decision-making roles in their respective institution. These experts had


extensive experience (more than 15 and 20 years) in road infrastructure projects.

They consisted of 16 senior officials from various government departments (Ministry

of Public Works, National Development Planning Agency) and universities, and four

senior officials from the Construction Services Development Board.

4.2.2 Distribution of the Delphi Questionnaires

In the interviews held to gather preliminary information, three main questions

relating to the interviewees‟ perceptions of the DB implementation were posed. The

questions gauged their opinions on stakeholder understanding of the DB project

delivery system, the barriers to the potential implementation of the DB system in

Indonesian road infrastructure projects and the factors promoting the DB potential

implementation in Indonesia.

In this research, each round of the Delphi questionnaire survey had a diverse

format. The distribution of questionnaires of each round of the Delphi survey is

described in the following subsections.

Delphi Round 1

As discussed in Chapter 3, the first Delphi questionnaire was developed based on

preliminary information combined with the literature review. In the first round of the

Delphi study, the experts were asked to rate their agreement on:

1. The stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system

including the DB concept and DB advantages.

2. Barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system.

3. Factors that can promote the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system.

The first round of the Delphi questionnaire was distributed in August 2011. A

total of 20 experts participated in the first round. The round 1 Delphi questionnaire


Factors 81

was sent to the panel of experts accompanied by an invitation letter. The letter

explained the purpose of the research and the approximate expected length of time to

fill in the questionnaire. The experts were also informed that there would be more

than one round of questionnaires, and that their participation in the survey would be

kept confidential.

The experts were given four weeks to complete and return the questionnaire.

However, only about half of the experts had returned the questionnaire within three

weeks‟ time. Emails were therefore sent to remind all the experts who had not yet

returned their completed questionnaires. This was followed by a phone call. It took

seven weeks to finish the first round of the Delphi survey.

Delphi Round 2

Once the first Delphi questionnaires were analysed, the results of those

questionnaires were used as the base for the second Delphi questionnaire

development. In the second round, the results of round 1 were consolidated and

presented. The panel members were requested to consider the ratings from round 1

and indicate whether they agreed with the ratings as stated in Chapter 3.

The second round of the Delphi questionnaire was forwarded to the panel of

experts by email in December 2011. The experts were given four weeks to complete

the questionnaire, as in the first round. Completion of the second round was more

difficult than the first round. It took more time than the first round to wait for the

participants‟ responses. In round 2, two experts did not respond to the questionnaire.

Three reminder emails were sent to them but they did not respond. It was assumed

that they withdrew their involvement from the survey due to their heavy workload.

Finally, a total of 18 experts completed the questionnaires in this round over a period

of seven weeks. A sample of the first and second round questionnaire is attached as

Appendix C.


4.2.3 Analysis

In this section, prior to presenting the result of the Delphi survey, the data analysis of

each round was restated. The data was analysed after it was gathered through the

questionnaire survey. The analysis of the data in each round of the Delphi

questionnaire survey is explained in the following subsections.

Delphi Round 1 Data Analysis

The mean, mode and median were used to provide the rating of each indicator while

the standard deviation was used to see the uniformity/convergence of each indicator.

In round 1, the indicators were categorised based on the median cut-off score. The

indicator was rated high if the median score was equal to or higher than 5. The

indicator was rated medium if the median was equal to 4 and less than 5, while the

indicator was rated low if the median was below 4.

Delphi Round 2 Data Analysis

In addition to frequency, the IQD was analysed to measure the consensus. Inter-

quartile deviation is a value of the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles.

The standard deviations of concept, advantage, barrier and factor were also

calculated to determine the uniformity/convergence of the participants‟ responses

(Raskin 1994).

As stated above, the frequency, inter-quartile deviation and standard deviation

were analysed to measure the consensus. The consensus can be achieved if the

participants provided the identical responses at least 67% of the time (Alexandrov et

al. 1996), the IQD was less than 1 and there was a low value of standard deviation.

The next sections present the results of the Delphi questionnaire survey regarding the

three areas of questioning. The detailed results of the Delphi analysis which used

Statistical Package for the Social science (SPSS) is attached as Appendix E.


Factors 83

4.3 STAKEHOLDERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF THE DB PROJECT

DELIVERY SYSTEM (CONCEPT AND ADVANTAGES)

One of the purposes of the Delphi study was to review the stakeholders‟

understanding of the DB project delivery system. Despite being an attractive option,

the DB project delivery system has not been implemented in road infrastructure

projects in Indonesia. Considering this circumstance, this research reviewed the

stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system. It concerned the concept and

advantages of the DB project delivery system.

In general, the main results from the interviews were about:

DB project description

DB tendering and contracts

Characteristics of the DB project

Advantages of the DB project delivery system.

These results were then further elaborated by combining them with the findings

of the literature review to develop the Delphi questionnaire.

4.3.1 Delphi Round 1 Rating Scores

The questions that related to the concept of the DB project system were classified

into three groups, namely, definition of the DB system, the characteristics of the DB

procurement and contract, and characteristics of the DB project. Tables 4.3a to 4.3c

list the stakeholders‟ understandings with regard to the concept of the DB project

delivery system.


Table 4.3a: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system concept – Definition of DB

Current Understanding of DB

(Concept) Mean Median Mode SD Rating

Definition of DB

1

The client deals directly with the

constructor for the complete design and

construction

5.10 6.00 6.00 1.518

High 2

The constructor/design builder has

single responsibility 5.20 5.00 5.00 1.152

3 The constructor will design and

construct the project 5.05 5.00 6.00 1.317

4 The project is executed by a single

entity/organisation 4.65 5.00 5.00 1.137

In the “definition of DB” group, all concepts were rated highly with the median

scores of 6 and 5. The participants have high levels of agreement with the definition

of the DB project delivery system. Those concepts were “the client deals directly

with the constructor for the complete design and construction” (a median score of 6),

“the constructor/design builder has single responsibility” (a median score of 5),

“executed by a single entity/organisation” (a median score of 5), and “the constructor

will design and construct the project” (a median score of 5).

Table 4.3b: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system – Procurement and contract characteristics




1 Integrates design and construction into

one contract 5.10 5.00 5.00 1.210

High

2 The design and construction are in one

procurement 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.214

3 Is based on lump sum fixed price basis 4.50 5.00 5.00 1.192

4 Can be procured by limited tender 4.40 5.00 5.00 1.429

5 Design and construction are paid in

single financial transaction 4.40 5.00 5.00 1.188

6 Includes engineering procurement and

construction 4.35 4.50 5.00 1.040 Medium

Five indicators were rated highly in the “DB procurement and contract

characteristic” group. A high level of agreement was achieved on each of the five

concepts, namely, “integrates design and construction into one contract” (a median

score of 5), “the design and construction are in one procurement” ( a median score of


Factors 85

5), “includes engineering procurement and construction” (a median score of 5),

“based on lump sum fixed price basis” (a median score of 5) and “design and

construction are paid in single financial transaction” (a median score of 5). One

indicator was rated medium, namely, “can be procured by limited tender” with a

median score of 4.5.

Table 4.3c: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system – DB project characteristics



DB Project Characteristics

1 Has varied tasks in project scope 5.20 5.00 5.00 0.696

High

2 Requires efficient coordination, control

and monitoring from start to finish 5.05 5.00 5.00 0.686

3 Needs specialists in project scope 4.55 5.00 5.00 1.050

4 Needs advanced technology 4.50 5.00 5.00 1.051

5

Used for high-risk projects which can

endanger public safety, human life and

the environment

4.50 5.00 5.00 1.147

6 Used for projects that can endanger the

environment 4.45 5.00 5.00 1.050

7 Used for projects that can result in

hazards 4.40 5.00 5.00 1.188


labour at the project site 4.25 5.00 5.00 1.517

9 Requires a lot of details about how it

should be executed 4.00 4.50 5.00 1.376

Medium 10 Has intricate work in the project 4.15 4.00 3.00 1.040

11 Used for projects which are valued

over USD 5,000,000 4.10 4.00 5.00 0.968

12 Used for medium and small size

projects 4.10 4.00 4.00 0.852

13

Has a large number of different

systems that need to be put together

and/or with a large number of

interfaces between elements

3.65 3.50 3.00 1.137

Low 14

Usually encounters a series of revisions

during construction and needs

interrelationship between activities

3.70 3.00 3.00 1.261

15

Involves construction work on a

confined site with access difficulty and

requiring many trades to work in close

proximity at the same time

3.45 3.00 3.00 0.887


In the “DB project characteristic” group, high ratings were given to “having

varied tasks in project scope”, “requires efficient coordination, control, and

monitoring from start to finish”, “needs specialists in project scope”, “needs

advanced technology”, “used for high-risk projects which can endanger public

safety, human life and the environment”, “used for projects that can endanger the

environment”, “used for projects that can result in hazards”, and “used for projects

that can endanger the labour at the project site”. The median score for these

characteristics was 5.

The characteristics “requires a lot of details about how it should be executed”

(a median score of 4.5), “has intricate work in the project” (a median score of 4),

“used for projects which are valued over USD 5,000,000” (a median score of 4),

“used for medium and small size projects” (a median score of 4) were rated medium.

The characteristics “has a large number of different systems that need to be put

together and/or with a large number of interfaces between elements” (a median score

of 3.5), “usually encounters a series of revisions during construction and needs

interrelationship between activities” (a median score of 3), and “involves

construction work on a confined site with access difficulty and requiring many trades

to work in close proximity at the same time” (a median score of 3) were rated low.

The respondents also proposed two concepts with regard to DB project

characteristics based on their own perspectives, namely, that people involved in DB

projects require specific skills, and that the projects can be executed by several

construction methods. These were proposed as new indicators in the second round.

Similarly, the mean, mode, median and standard deviation were also analysed

to provide the ratings of the stakeholders‟ understanding with regard to the

advantages of the DB system. The advantages of the DB system were classified into

five groups as follows:

Shorter duration

Lower cost


Factors 87

Better quality

Enhanced innovation

Better management.

Each group of DB system advantages was described by several indicators. Tables

4.4a to 4.4e present the advantages of the DB system based on the experts‟

perspectives.

Table 4.4a: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) – Shorter

duration

Current Understanding

(Advantage/Benefit of DB) Mean Median Mode SD Rating

Shorter Duration

1 Simultaneous contracting of design

and construction 5.20 5.00 5.00 0.696

High

2 Overlapping design and construction

phase 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.725

3

The key item of materials and

components determined early in the

drawing-up of specifications

4.85 5.00 5.00 0.933

4

Optimum use of the experience and

knowledge (constructability) that

constructor/design builder provide

4.25 5.00 5.00 1.209

In the “short duration” group, each indicator had a median score of 5.

Therefore, these indicators (“simultaneous contracting of design and construction”,

“overlapping design and construction phase”, “the key item of materials and

components determined early in the drawing-up of specifications”, “optimum use of

the experience and knowledge (constructability) that constructor/design builder

provide”) were rated high. A new indicator was proposed, namely, reducing

procurement time.


Table 4.4b: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) – Lower cost



Lower Cost

1 Designer and contractor in the same

team 5.15 5.00 5.00 0.745

High

2 Early cost certainty 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.973

3 Early project completion 4.85 5.00 5.00 1.04

4




4.50 5.00 5.00 1.1

All indicators in the “lower cost” group were also rated high, with a median

score of 5. These indicators were “designer and contractor in the same team”, “early

cost certainty”, “early project completion”, “optimum use of the experience and

knowledge (constructability) that constructor/design builder provide”.

Table 4.4c: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) – Better

quality



Better Quality

1



constructor/ design builder provide

4.95 5.00 5.00 0.887

High 2 Allowing the use of best value method

to assess quality of design 4.90 5.00 5.00 0.788

3

Allowing the use of best value method

to assess the qualification of

constructor/design builders

4.70 5.00 5.00 0.865

The “better quality” group had three indicators (“optimum use of the

experience and knowledge (constructability) that constructor/ design builder

provide”, “allowing the use of best value method to assess quality of design”, and

“allowing the use of best value method to assess the qualification of

constructor/design builders”), all of which were rated high with a median of 5. New

indicators were also proposed, namely, reducing rework, reducing different

interpretations among the staff involved, reducing the possibility of failure.


Factors 89

Table 4.4d: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) – Enhanced

innovation



Enhanced Innovation

1

The DB can promote innovation in

management such as increasing

transparency and open communication

among project team members

5.30 5.00 5.00 0.657

High

2

The DB allows the contractors to use

any material as long as they can meet

performance quality criteria

5.2 5.00 5.00 0.616

3

The DB enables contractors to have

significant freedom and flexibility in

construction technique

5.15 5.00 5.00 0.745

4

The DB allows contractors to use any

equipment as long as their results meet

the quality criteria and client objective

5.10 5.00 5.00 0.718

5

The DB can promote innovation by

utilising the designers‟ and builders‟

separate strengths to develop new

design and construction techniques

5.10 5.00 5.00 0.788

In the “enhanced innovation” group, high ratings were attained on all five

indicators, namely, “the DB can promote innovation in management such as

increasing transparency and open communication among project team members”,

“the DB allows the contractors to use any material as long as they can meet

performance quality criteria”, “the DB enables contractors to have significant

freedom and flexibility in construction technique”, “the DB allows contractors to use

any equipment as long as their results meet the quality criteria and client objective”,

and “the DB can promote innovation by utilising the designers‟ and builders‟

separate strengths to develop new design and construction techniques”) with a

median of 5. A new indicator was also proposed, namely, allowing the use modern

construction techniques and innovative technology.


Table 4.4e: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB system (advantages/benefits of DB) – Better

management



Better Management

1

Single responsibility that DB provides

can lead to minimum conflict and

disputes

5.10 5.00 5.00 0.718

High

2


can lead to streamlining the

coordination between the design and

construction teams

5.00 5.00 5.00 0.858

3 Single responsibility can lead to

lessening the administrative burden 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.973

4

Single responsibility can lead to

arbitrating between distinct design and

construction entities

4.90 5.00 5.00 0.788

5 Single responsibility can avoid the

complexities of multiple contracts 4.50 5.00 5.00 1.147


adversarial roles amongst parties 4.4 5 5 1.188

The “better management” group consisted of six indicators which were rated

high with a median of 5. Those indicators were “single responsibility that DB

provides can lead to minimum conflict and disputes”, “single responsibility can lead

to streamlining the coordination between the design and construction teams”, “single

responsibility can lead to lessening the administrative burden”, “single responsibility

can lead to arbitrating between distinct design and construction entities”, “single

responsibility can avoid the complexities of multiple contracts”, and “single

responsibility can avoid the adversarial roles amongst parties”.

4.3.2 Delphi Round 2 - Considering the Ratings

Once the results from the first Delphi round were obtained, the second round was

conducted. The objective of the second Delphi round was to consider the ratings that

resulted from the first round. Tables 4.5a to 4.5c present the results regarding the

stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system concept. Frequency,

IQD and standard deviation were used to analyse the ratings and consider each

indicator.


Factors 91

Table 4.5a: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system concept –Definition of DB

No. Rating Concept of DB % IQD SD

Definition of DB

1

High

The client deals directly with the constructor

for the complete design and construction

100 0 0

2 The constructor/design builder has single

responsibility

100 0 0

3 The constructor designs and constructs the

project

100 0 0


entity/organisation

100 0 0

In the “definition of the DB” group the participants agreed with all of the

definitions which were provided in the questionnaire. They had identical

understandings of the definitions of the DB system, namely, that “the client deals

directly with the constructor for the complete design and construction”, “the

constructor/design builder has single responsibility”, “the project is executed by a

single entity/organisation”, and “the constructor will design and construct the

project”. The agreement response frequency was 100%.

Table 4.5b: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system concept – Procurement

and contract characteristics

No. Rating Concept of DB

% IQD SD


1

High

Integrates design and construction into one

contract

100 0 0


procurement

100 0 0

3 Is based on lump sum fixed price basis 94.4 0 0236

4 Can be procured by limited tender 77.8 0.25 0.428

5 Design and construction are paid in single

financial transaction

94.4 0 0.236

6 Medium

Includes engineering procurement and

construction

77.8 0.25 0.428


In the “DB procurement and contract characteristics” group, most respondents

agreed and had similar understandings of the five characteristics (“integrates design

and construction into one contract”, “the design and construction are in one

procurement”, “includes engineering procurement and construction”, “based on lump

sum fixed price basis”, and “design and construction are paid in single financial

transaction”) which were rated high with agreement frequencies of above 67%. They

also agreed with one concept (“can be procured by limited tender”) at an agreement

frequency of 77.8%, which was rated medium.

Table 4.5c: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system concept – Project

characteristics

No. Rating Concept of DB % IQD SD


1

High

Has varied tasks in project scope 94.4 1 0.236

2 Requires efficient coordination, control and

monitoring from start to finish

83.3 1 0.383

3 Needs specialists in project scope 94.4 1 0.236

4 Needs advanced technology 88.9 1 0.323

5

Used for high-risk project which can

endanger public safety, human life and the

environment

100 1 0


environment

88.9 1 0.323

7 Used for projects that can result in hazards 94.4 1 0.236

8 Used for projects that can endanger the labour

at the project site

88.9 1 0.323

9

Medium

Requires a lot of details about how it should

be executed

88.8 1 0.323

10 Has intricate work in the project 94.4 1 0.236

11 Used for projects which are valued over USD

5,000,000 88.9 1 0.323

12 Used for medium and small size projects 94.4 1 0.236

13

Low

Has a large number of different systems that

need to be put together and/or with a large

number of interfaces between elements

94.4 1 0.236

14

Revisions are usually encountered during

construction and interrelationship between

activities is needed

77.8 0.25 0.428

15

Involves construction work on a confined site

with access difficulty and requiring many

trades to work in close proximity at the same

time

77.8 0.25 0.428

Proposed Concept

1

High

People involved in DB projects require

specific skills

94.4 0 0.236

2 The project can be executed by several

construction methods

94.4 0 0.236


Factors 93

Most respondents agreed and had the same understanding of eight concepts

(“has varied tasks in project scope”, “requires efficient coordination”, “needs

specialists in project scope”, “needs advanced technology”, “used for high risk

projects which can endanger public safety, human life and the environment”, “used

for projects that can endanger the environment” “used for projects that can result in

hazards”, and “used for projects that can endanger the labour at the project site”)

which were rated high. The agreement frequencies were greater than 67%. The

respondents were in agreement about “requires a lot of details about how it should be

executed”, “has intricate work in the project”, “used for projects which are valued

over USD 5,000,000” and “used for medium and small size projects”. These were

rated medium with agreement frequencies of greater than 67%. They agreed on low

ratings (with agreement frequencies above 67%) for “has a large number of different

systems that need to be put together and/or with a large number of interfaces between

elements”, “revisions are usually encountered during construction and

interrelationship between activities is needed”, and “involves construction work on a

confined site with access difficulty and requiring many trades to work in close

proximity at the same time”. They agreed on high ratings of the new concepts of

project characteristics (“people involved in DB projects require specific skills” and

“the project can be executed by several construction methods”) with agreement

frequencies of 94.4%.

The advantages of the DB system were likewise analysed. Tables 4.6a to 4.6e

present the indicators of stakeholders‟ understandings of DB project delivery system

benefits. Frequency, IQD and standard deviation were used to analyse the ratings and

consider each indicator.


Table 4.6a: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits – Shorter duration

No. Rating Benefit % IQD SD

Shorter Duration

1

High

Simultaneous contracting of design

and construction 100 0 0

2 Overlapping design and construction

phase 100 0 0

3

The key item of materials and

components determined early in the

drawing-up of specifications

88.9 0 0.323

4




100 0 0

Proposed Advantage

1 High Procurement is conducted once

100 0 0

In the “shorter duration” group, most participants agreed with all of the

indicators which led to shorter duration in implementing the DB system. Most of

them had the same understanding of the “shorter duration” advantage which was

designated through indicators of “simultaneous contracting of design and

construction”, “overlapping design and construction phase”, “the key item of

materials and components determined early in the drawing-up of specifications”, and

“optimum use of the experience and knowledge (constructability) that

constructor/design builder provide”. The agreement frequencies for these were above

80%.

Table 4.6b: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits – Lower cost


Lower Cost

1

High

Designer and contractor in the same

team

100 0 0

2 Early cost certainty 88.9 0 0.323

3 Early project completion 94.4 0 0.236

4




100 0 0


Factors 95

In the “lower cost” group, most respondents agreed and had similar

understandings of four indicators (“designer and contractor in the same team”, “early

cost certainty”, “early project completion”, and “optimum use of the experience and

knowledge (constructability) that constructor/design builder provide”) which led to

lower cost receiving agreement frequencies of above 67%.

Table 4.6c: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits – Better quality


Better Quality

1

High



constructor/ design builder provide

100 0 0

2 DB allows the use of best value

method to assess quality of design

94.4 0 0.236

3

DB allows the use of best value

method to assess the qualification of


88.9 0 0.323

Proposed Advantages

1

High

Rework can be avoided 88.9 0 0.323

2 Different interpretations among the

staff involved can be avoided

88.9 0 0323

3 The possibility of failure can be

avoided

88.3 0 0.383

In the “better quality” group, most participants agreed with all of the indicators

leading to better quality in implementing the DB system. Most of them had similar

perceptions of the better quality advantage which was designated through the

indicators “optimum use of the experience and knowledge (constructability) that

constructor/ design builder provide”, “DB allows the use of best value method to

assess quality of design”, and “DB allows the use of best value method to assess the

qualification of constructor/design builders”. The agreement frequencies for these

were above 67%.


Table 4.6d: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits – Enhanced

innovation


Enhanced Innovation

1

High

DB can promote innovation in


transparency and open

communication among project

team members

100 0 0

2

DB allows the contractors to use

any material as long as they can

meet performance quality criteria

88.9 0 0.323

3

DB enable contractors to have

significant freedom and flexibility

in technique

94.4 0 0.236

4

DB allows contractors to use any

equipment as long as their results

meet the quality criteria and client

objective

100 0 0

5

DB can promote innovation by

utilising the designers‟ and

builders‟ separate strengths to

develop new design and

construction techniques

100 0 0

Proposed Advantage

1 High

DB enables the use of modern

construction techniques and

innovative technology

100 0 0

In the “enhanced innovation” group, most experts agreed and had similar

understanding of five indicators (“DB can promote innovation in management such

as increasing transparency and open communication among project team members”,

“DB allows the contractors to use any material as long as they can meet performance

quality criteria”, “DB enable contractors to have significant freedom and flexibility

in construction technique”, “DB allows contractors to use any equipment as long as

their results meet the quality criteria and client objective”, and “DB can promote

innovation by utilising the designers‟ and builders‟ separate strengths to develop new

design and construction techniques”) with agreement frequencies above 67%.


Factors 97

Table 4.6e: Stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system benefits – Better

management


Better Management

1

High


can lead to minimum conflict and

disputes

88.9 0 0.323

2


streamlining the coordination between

the design and construction teams

100 0 0

3 Single responsibility can lead to

lessening the administrative burdens

88.9 0 0.323

4


arbitrating between distinct design

and construction entities

94.4 0 0.236


complexities of multiple contracts

88.9 0 0.323


adversarial roles amongst parties

83.3 0 0.383

In the “better management” group, most respondent agreed and had the same

understanding of all six indicators (“single responsibility that DB provides can lead

to minimum conflict and disputes”, “single responsibility can lead to streamlining the

coordination between the design and construction teams”, “single responsibility can

lead to lessening the administrative burdens”, “single responsibility can lead to

arbitrating between distinct design and construction entities”, “single responsibility

can avoid the complexities of multiple contracts”, “single responsibility can avoid

the adversarial roles amongst parties”) with agreement frequencies above 67%.

Consensus was achieved in this round as three of the requirements were met. It

can be seen that each concept and advantage indicator had agreement frequencies of

above 67%. The IQR of each concept and advantage indicator was less than 1 and

the standard deviation became convergent. The results show that the participants had

a good understanding of the DB project delivery system.


4.4 BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING DB PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM

The second objective of the Delphi survey in this research was to identify the barriers

that hinder DB potential implementation. Previous research has found that there are

barriers that obstruct the DB potential implementation. Based on the literature review

and the initial interviews, the barriers to implementing the DB system were identified

in this Delphi survey.

4.4.1 Delphi Round 1 Rating Score

The barriers that can hinder DB potential implementation were divided into four

groups which relate to regulation, client competencies, other participant/stakeholder

competencies, and adaptability. Tables 4.7ato 4.7d present the indications of the

barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system.

Table 4.7a: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Regulation

No. Barriers Mean Median Mode SD Rating

Lack of Regulation

1 Lack of detailed regulation on project

characteristics 4.7 5 5 0.923

High 2

Lack of detailed regulation on

tendering system 4.65 5 5 0.933

3 Lack of regulation on contractual

arrangement 4.65 5 5 1.089

4 Lack of risk management approach 4.4 5 5 1.188

Participants have high agreement that regulation is a barrier to implementing

the DB project delivery system. This can be seen from the indicators (“lack of

detailed regulation on project characteristics” such as the type and value of projects

suitable for the DB project delivery system, “lack of detailed regulation on tendering

procedure”, “lack of regulation on contractual arrangement”, and “lack of risk

management approach”) which were rated high with a median of 5.


Factors 99

Table 4.7b: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Client competencies

No Barriers Mean Median Mode SD Rating

Lack of Clients’ Capabilities

1 Lack of experience 4.95 5 5 1.099

High

2 Lack of skill 4.85 5 5 1.089

3 Lack of knowledge 4.8 5 5 1.005

4 Lack of understanding of staff 4.7 5 5 0.923

5 Lack of adequate staff 4.65 5 5 0.587

6 Lack of effort to implement DB 4.65 5 5 0.933

Similar to regulation, participants had high agreement with client capability as

a barrier to implementing the DB project delivery system. This can be seen from the

median score of 5 that indicates the high rating of the barrier. The indicators in the

client competencies group were “lack of experience”, “lack of skill”, “lack of

knowledge”, “lack of understanding of staff”, “lack of adequate staff”, and “lack of

effort to implement DB”.

Table 4.7c: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Other participant/stakeholder

capability


Lack of other participant/stakeholder capabilities

1 A small number of experienced and

skilled other stakeholders in DB 4.8 5 5 1.005

High 2 Lack of DB experts 4.65 5 5 0.933

3 Lack of design capability 4.65 5 5 0.988

The competency of other stakeholders was considered as a barrier to DB

potential implementation. The barriers were rated highly. These barriers (“small

number of experienced and skilled other stakeholders in DB”, “lack of DB experts”

and “lack of design capability”) had a median of 5.


Table 4.7d: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Adaptability


Adaptability

1 Clients prefer traditional method to

DB 4.8 5 5 1.005

High

2 Lack of promotion of DB 4.7 5 5 0.979

3 Resistance to adopting a new system 4.7 5 5 1.129

4 Clients do not have confidence in

managing DB 4.5 5 5 1.000

5 Clients are not aware of the benefits of

DB 4.4 5 5 0.940

6 Lack of attention from clients 4.4 5 5 1.046

7 Clients are wary of new innovation

and systems 4.4 5 5 1.046

8 Clients are constrained by traditional

DBB method 4.15 4.5 5 1.040 Medium

Adaptability was considered as a barrier to implementing the DB project

delivery system. Participants were in agreement that six barriers should be rated

highly (“clients prefer traditional method to the DB”, “lack of promotion of the DB”,

“resistance to adopting a new system”, “clients do not have confidence in managing

the DB”, “clients are not aware of the benefits of DB”, “clients are wary of new

innovation and system” and “lack of attention from clients”) with a median of 5.

They also agreed that a barrier should be rated medium (“clients are constrained by

the traditional DBB method”) with medians of 4.5 and 4.

4.4.2 Delphi Round 2 – Considering the Ratings

In the second round of the Delphi survey, the experts were requested to re-assess the

ratings that resulted from the first Delphi survey. Tables 4.8a to 4.8d present the

indications of the barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system. The

frequency, IQD and standard deviation were used to analyse the ratings and consider

each barrier.


Factors 101

Table 4.8a: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Lack of regulation

No. Rating Barrier % IQD SD

Lack of Regulation

1

High

Lack of detailed regulation on project

characteristics

94.4 0 0.236

2 Lack of detailed regulation on tendering

procedure

94.4 0 0.236

3 Lack of regulation on contractual arrangement 94.4 0 0.236

4 Lack of risk management approach 100 0 0

Overall, most participants agreed with the rating of the barriers to

implementing the DB system. Most participants agreed with the high rating of all

barriers (“lack of detailed regulation on project characteristics”, “lack of detailed

regulation on tendering procedure”, “lack of regulation on contractual arrangement”,

and “lack of risk management approach”) in the regulation group that resulted from

the first Delphi study round. The agreement frequencies were above 67%. Therefore,

these were considered as main barriers to implementing the DB system.

Table 4.8b: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Lack of client capability


Lack of Client Capability

1

High

Lack of experience 88.9 0 0.323

2 Lack of skill 94.4 0 0.236

3 Lack of knowledge 88.9 0 0.323

4 Lack of effort to implement DB 94.4 0 0.236

5 Lack of understanding of staff 83.3 0 0.383

6 Lack of adequate staff 94.4 0 0.236


Likewise, in regard to client capability (“lack of experience”, “lack of skill”,

“lack of knowledge”, “lack of understanding”, “lack of adequate staff”, and “lack of

effort to implement DB”), most participants agreed with the high rating of these

barriers. These barriers were considered as main barriers to implementing the DB

system with agreement frequencies of above 67%.

Table 4.8c: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Other participant/stakeholder

capability


Lack of Other Participant/Stakeholder Capability

1

High

A small number of experienced and skilled

other stakeholders in DB

77.8 0.25 0.428

2 Lack of DB experts 83.3 0 0.383

3 Lack of design capability 77.8 0.25 0.428

In the “other stakeholder capability” barrier group (“small number of

experienced and skilled other stakeholders in DB”, “lack of DB experts”, and “lack

of design capability”), most participants agreed with the high ratings. These were

considered as main barriers to implementing the DB system, with frequencies above

67%.

Table 4.8d: Barriers to implementing DB project delivery system – Adaptability


Adaptability

1

High

Clients prefer traditional method to DB 83.3 0 0.383

2 Lack of promotion of DB 77.8 0.25 0.428

3 Resistance to adopting a new system 94.4 0 0.236

4 Clients do not have confidence in managing

DB

83.3 0 0.383

5 Clients are not aware of the benefit of DB. 83.3 0 0.383

6 Lack of attention from clients 88.9 0 0.323

7 Clients are wary of new innovation and

systems

88.9 0 0.323

8 Medium

Clients are constrained by traditional DBB

method

94.4 0 0.236


Factors 103

In regard to adaptability, most participants in the second round agreed with the high

ratings of “clients prefer traditional method to DB”, “lack of promotion of DB”,

“clients do not have confidence in managing DB”, “clients are not aware of the DB

benefits”, “clients are wary of new innovation system”, “resistance to adopting new

system” and “lack of attention from clients”. Similarly, they agreed with the medium

rating of “clients are constrained by traditional DBB method”. The agreement

frequencies were above 67%. Even though the participants had good understanding

of the DB system as explained in the previous section, they did not embody all of the

stakeholders‟ perceptions. The participants were conscious that not all of the

stakeholders considered as clients were aware of the DB benefits.

In the second round Delphi study, the consensus was achieved as the

frequency, IQR and standard deviation met the consensus requirement. It can be seen

that each concept and advantage indicator had agreement frequencies of above 67%.

The IQR of each concept and advantage indicator was less than 1 and the standard

deviation became convergent. The results show that there were four main groups of

barriers to the DB system potential implementation, that is, lack of regulation, lack of

client competencies, lack of other participants‟ competencies, and adaptability. These

barriers were perceived to obstruct the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system.

4.5 FACTORS THAT CAN PROMOTE THE POTENTIAL

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM

Identifying factors that can promote the DB potential implementation was the third

purpose of the Delphi study. It is expected that these factors could overcome the

barriers. The content of the questionnaire in this Delphi study was developed based

on the literature review and initial interviews.

4.5.1 Delphi Round 1 Rating Score

The factors that can promote the DB potential implementation were divided into four

groups, namely, regulation, capability of client, management, and external


conditions. Tables 4.9a to 4.9d present the indications of factors that can promote the

potential implementation of the DB project delivery system. The mean, mode,

median and standard deviation were used to provide the rating of each indicator.

Table 4.9a: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of the DB project delivery system –

Regulation

No. Factors That Promote DB

Potential Implementation Mean Median Mode SD Rating

Regulation

1 Adjustment of regulation on project

characteristics

4.95 5 5 0.887

High

2 Adjustment of regulation on

contractual arrangement

4.60 5 5 0.821

3 Legislative authority for

implementing DB

4.55 5 5 0.887

4 Availability of project risk approach

to managing project risk

4.50 5 5 0.889

5 Adjustment of regulation on

tendering system

4.40 5 5 0.883

In the “regulation” group, five factors were rated high with a median score of

5. These important factors were “adjustment of regulation on project characteristics”,

“adjustment of regulation on contractual arrangement”, “legislative authority for

implementing DB”, “availability of project risk approach to managing project risk”

and “adjustment of regulation on tendering system”.

Table 4.9b: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB Project Delivery System –

Client capability

No. Factors That Promote DB

Potential Implementation

Mean Median Mode SD Rating

Capability of Client

1 Training on the DB system is

provided to agency staff and external

parties

5.20 5 5 0.616 High

2 Availability of pilot project 5.15 5 5 0.587

The respondents were in agreement about the importance of the capability of

the client to implement the DB project delivery system. This can be seen from the


Factors 105

median of 5. It led to these factors (“training on the DB system is provided to agency

staff and external parties” and “availability of pilot project”) having a high rating.

Table 4.9c: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery system –

Management by client

No

.

Factors That Promote DB

Potential Implementation


Management by Owner/Client

1 Communication and knowledge

sharing among staff of project owners

to facilitate the DB

5.20 5 5 0.616

High

2 Socialisation and communication with

external parties affected by the DB

system

5.20 5 5 0.696

3 Availability of owner‟s staff for

implementing DB 5.15 5 5 0.671

4 Acceptance of change by owner‟s staff 5.15 5 5 0.745

5 Agency‟s management vision and

support for adopting/implementing the

DB

5.10 5 5 0.641

The respondents were in agreement about the importance of management by

the owner/client to implement the DB project delivery system. This can be seen from

the median of 5. It led to these factors (“communication and knowledge sharing

among staff of project owners to facilitate the DB”, “socialisation and

communication with external parties affected by the DB system”, “availability of

owner‟s staff for implementing DB”, “acceptance of change by owner‟s staff” and

“agency‟s management vision and support for adopting/implementing the DB”)

having high ratings.


Table 4.9d: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery system –

External conditions

No. Factors That Promote DB Potential

Implementation


External Conditions

1 Support and acceptance by relevant

parties/other stakeholders 4.50 5 5 1.147

High 2 Support/acceptance by industry provider 4.25 5 5 1.517

3 Political environment 3.95 4 5 1.356 Medium

4 Economic environment 3.95 4 5 1.356

5 Physical environment (weather conditions) 3.60 3 3 1.392

Low 6 Social environment/ acceptance by general

public 3.60 3 3 1.392

“Support and acceptance by relevant parties/other stakeholders” and

“support/acceptance by industry provider” were considered as very important

external condition factors with a median of 5. “Political environment” and

“economic environment” were considered as medium indicators with a median of 4,

while “physical environment” and “social environment” were not considered as

important as the other external factors for the potential implementation of DB project

delivery systems.

Standard deviation was calculated to see the uniformity of the responses of

participants. From the table above, it can be seen that the standard deviation of each

indicators varied from 0.605 to 1.392. The standard deviation of those indicators was

still high and indicates that consensus was been achieved. Moreover, the consensus

needed to be obtained by considering the ratings. Therefore, it was necessary to

conduct the second round Delphi study.

4.5.2 Delphi Round 2 – Considering the Ratings

In the second round of the Delphi survey, the experts were requested to re-assess the

ratings that resulted in the first Delphi survey. Tables 4.10a to 4.10d present the

factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery system.


Factors 107

The frequency, IQD, and standard deviation were used to analyse the rating of each

indicator.

Table 4.10a: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery system –

Regulation

No. Rating Factors That Can Promote DB Potential

Implementation % IQD SD

Regulation

1

High

Adjustment of regulation on project characteristics 100 0 0

2 Adjustment of regulation on contractual

arrangements 77.8 0.25 0.428

3 Legislative authority for implementing DB 100 0 0

4 Availability of project risk approach to managing

project risk 100 0 0

5 Adjustment of regulation on tendering system 83.3 0 0.383

In regard to the “regulation” group of factors, most participants agreed with the

ratings that resulted from round 1. They agreed that “adjustment of regulation on

project characteristics”, “adjustment of regulation on contractual arrangements”,

“legislative authority for implementing DB”, “availability of project risk approach to

managing project risk”, and “adjustment of regulation on tendering system” were

rated high. This can be seen from the frequencies of participant response. The

frequency of the “yes” response to indicators in this group was more than 67%.

Therefore, “regulation” is considered as an important factor that can promote the

potential implementation of the DB system.

Table 4.10b: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery system –

Capability of client



Capability of Client

1 High

Training on DB approaches is

provided to agency staff and external parties 100 0 0

2 Availability of pilot project 94.4 0 0.236


Most participants agreed with the high rating of all factors (“training on DB

approaches is provided to agency staff and external parties” and “availability of pilot

project”) in the “capability of client” group with frequencies above 67%. This group

was considered as an important factor to implement the DB system.

Table 4.10c: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery system –

Management



Management

1

High

Communication and knowledge sharing among staff

to facilitate DB 94.4 0 0.236

2 Socialisation and communication with external

parties affected by the DB system 94.4 0 0.236


implementing DB 83.3 0 0.383

4 Acceptance of change by owner‟s staff 83.3 0 0.383

5 Agency‟s management vision and support for

adopting/implementing DB is behind the effort 88.9 0 0.323

The “management” group of factors (“communication and knowledge sharing

among staff to facilitate DB”, “socialisation and communication with external parties

affected by change/ the DB project delivery system”, “availability of owner‟s staff

for implementing DB”, “acceptance of change by owner‟s staff” and “agency‟s

management vision and support for adopting/implementing DB is behind the effort”)

were considered to be important. It can be seen that all the factors in these two

groups of factors (namely, capability of client and management) were rated high with

frequencies above 67%.


Factors 109

Table 4.10d: Factors that can promote the potential implementation of DB project delivery system –

External conditions



External Conditions

1 High

Support and acceptance by relevant parties/other

stakeholders 88.9 0 0.323

2 Support/acceptance by industry provider 83.3 0 0.383

3 Medium

Political environment 94.4 0 0.236

4 Economic environment 88.9 0 0.236

5 Low

Physical environment (weather conditions) 88.9 0 0.323

6 Social environment/ acceptance by general public 83.3 0 0.383

In the “external conditions” group, most participants agreed with the ratings

that resulted from round 1. They agreed that “support and acceptance by relevant

parties/other stakeholders” and “support/acceptance by industry provider” should be

rated high; “political environment” and “economic environment” should be rated

medium; and “physical environment (weather conditions)” and “social environment”

should be rated low. The frequency of the “yes” response to the indicators in this

group was more than 67%. Therefore, the factor “external conditions” was

considered to be an important factor for implementing the DB system.

In the second round Delphi study, the consensus was achieved as the

frequencies, IQR and standard deviation met the consensus requirement. It can be

seen that each concept and advantage indicator had agreement frequencies of above

67%. The IQR of each concept and advantage indicator was less than 1 and the

standard deviation became smaller. The results show that there were four main

groups of factors that could promote the DB system potential implementation, that is,

regulation, capability of client, management by client, and external conditions. It is

expected that these factors can also overcome the barriers.


4.6 SUMMARY

This chapter presents the results of the analysis of the data from the two-round

Delphi survey. Specifically, it addresses the first and second objectives of the

research which were to review the stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project

delivery system, identify the barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system

and identify the factors that can promote the DB system potential implementation.

The experts who participated in this research were from the top management

level in their respective organisations. They came from various professional

backgrounds, and several of them had decision-making roles in their work capacity.

Hence, the results represented here are holistic and balanced, and suitable to

represent the Indonesia-wide context.

The stakeholders mostly had a similar understanding of the DB project delivery

system. They had similar perceptions of the three aspects (definition of the DB,

procurement and contract characteristics, and DB project characteristics) of the

concept of the DB system. Likewise, they mostly had the same opinion on the five

aspects (shorter duration, lower cost, better quality, enhanced innovation and better

management) of the advantages of the DB project delivery system.

Four groups of barriers to implementing the DB project delivery system were

identified, namely, regulation, client competencies, other participants‟ competencies,

and adaptability. The consensus found that 21 barriers in the four groups were rated

high. These barriers were believed to be the main barriers that can hinder the

potential implementation of the DB project delivery system in Indonesian road

infrastructure projects.

The Delphi study also identified consensus on the factors that can promote DB

potential implementation. These factors are also expected to overcome the barriers to

implementing the DB project delivery system. There were 14 main factors which

could promote the DB system, namely, “adjustment of regulation on project

characteristics or/ execution project”, “adjustment of regulation on contractual

arrangements”, “legislative authority for implementing DB”, “availability of project


Factors 111

risk approach/ a clear and transparent approach to managing project risk”,

“adjustment of regulation on tendering system”, “training on newly introduced

approach is provided to agency staff and external parties”, “availability of pilot

project for gaining experience”, “communication and knowledge sharing among staff

to facilitate DB”, “socialisation and communication with external parties affected by

change”, “availability of agency‟s staff for implementing the DB”, “acceptance of

change by agency staff”, “agency‟s management vision and support for

adopting/implementing DB is behind the effort”, “support and acceptance by relevant

parties/other stakeholders” and “support/acceptance by industry provider”.

After analysis, the results were then ready for subsequent research work to

identify the relationships and hierarchy amongst the factors through a pair-wise

comparison questionnaire survey. The following chapter elaborates on the results of

the pair-wise comparison questionnaire survey that were considered before the model

for implementing the DB project delivery system was developed.

Chapter 5:Model for Implementing DB Project Delivery System 113

Chapter 5: Model for Implementing DB

Project Delivery System

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 4 analysed the stakeholders‟ understanding of the design-build project

delivery system, identified the barriers to implementing it, and identified the factors

that can promote the potential implementation of the DB project delivery system. In

addition to promoting the DB potential implementation, these factors are also

expected to overcome the barriers. They can be considered as actions to deal with the

barriers. In order to implement the DB delivery system in road infrastructure, the key

project stakeholders have to possess comprehensive understanding of such factors by

understanding the hierarchy and the interrelationships of those factors. The

identification of the factors that can promote the DB potential implementation is only

the initial phase. Discovering the level or hierarchy structure and the

interrelationships of these factors can develop in-depth understanding of the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system.

This chapter reports the process of model development in detail. It presents the

interpretive structural modelling process in dealing with the DB potential

implementation hierarchy and interrelationship of the factors that can promote the

DB project delivery system. It begins by describing the data collection process,

followed by building the ISM-based model and MIC-MAC analysis. A summary is

provided at the end of the chapter.

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS

This section provides an overview of the data collection process. It begins by

documenting the profiles of the participants. The development of the questionnaire is

then elucidated.

114 Chapter 5:Model for Implementing DB Project Delivery System

5.2.1 Profiles of Experts

As discussed in Chapter 3, opinions and perspectives from a group of experts were

required in the pair-wise comparison survey. These participants had to possess wide

knowledge of the situation. The opinions and perspectives of the experts are

fundamental as the nature of ISM is to address the problems that are complex and

subjective. The experts‟ views were expected to be able to:

Develop a deep understanding of the current situation.

Establish a clear basis from which to consider the future.

Lead to the production of a framework for effective action (Warfield,

1974).

In this survey, the experts involved in the Delphi survey were invited to

participate in a pair-wise comparison survey. Eighteen experts were requested to

participate in this survey. Sixteen of them (89%) expressed their interest and agreed

to take part in this survey and all of them completed the questionnaire (Table 5.1).

The high response rate indicates that the research received a high level of attention

from the experts.

Table 5.1: Number of experts who were invited, agreed and completed the pair-wise comparison

survey

Sector No. of Experts

Invited Agreed Completed

Ministry of Public Works 12 11 11

National Development Planning Agency 2 2 2

Universities 2 1 1

Construction Services Development Board 2 2 2

Total 18 16 16


5.2.2 Development and Distribution of the Questionnaire

In Chapter 4, factors that can promote the DB system potential implementation were

identified from the Delphi survey. The highly rated factors were used to develop the

pair-wise comparison survey using ISM in order to ascertain the basic relations

between these factors. These factors are also expected to overcome the barriers and

can be considered as actions to deal with the barriers. Table 5.2 presents the factors

identified from the Delphi survey. There were fourteen factors which obtained high

ratings.

The pair-wise comparison questionnaire was used to develop an understanding

of the relationships between the fourteen factors using ISM. The experts were asked

to deal with two factors at a time. The number of questions that the questionnaire

contained was calculated using N(N-1)/2, where N is the number of factors between

which the relationships would be investigated. Since there were 14 factors, the

number of questions was 14 (14-1)/2 = 91. Therefore, the experts were asked to

compare and complete 91 relationships.

Table 5.2: Factors that can promote the DB potential implementation

No. Factor

1 Improved/adjustment of regulation on project characteristics and execution project

2 Improved/adjustment of regulation on tendering system

3 Improved/adjustment of regulation on contractual arrangements

4 Legislative authority for implementing DB

5 Availability of project risk approach to managing project risk

6 Support and acceptance by other stakeholders

7 Support and acceptance by industry provider

8 Acceptance of change by agency staff

9 Agency‟s management vision and support for adopting/implementing DB is behind the effort

10 Availability of agency‟s staff for implementing DB

11 Communication and knowledge sharing among staff to facilitate DB

12 Socialisation and communication with external parties affected by change

13 Training on newly introduced approaches to agency staff and external parties

14 Availability of pilot project


The pair-wise comparison questionnaire was administered in June 2012 to the

same expert panel who participated in the Delphi survey. They were given four

weeks to complete the questionnaire. Administration of this survey was more

difficult than the Delphi survey. The experts returned their completed questionnaires

over a period of seven weeks. A sample of the pair-wise comparison questionnaire is

attached as Appendix D.

5.3 DEVELOPING THE ISM-BASED MODEL

Once the set of factors that promote DB potential implementation was established, it

was then possible to understand the underlying implementation framework in which

these factors exist using ISM.

ISM is a process that assists people to structure their knowledge and to model

interrelationships in a way that enhances the ability to understand complexity. In

other words, it assists to identify a structure within a system of related elements and

provides an opportunity to analyse the structure from several viewpoints.

This section presents the process of developing the interpretive structural

model after the questionnaires were completed. It begins by developing the structural

self-interaction matrix. It is then followed by developing reachability matrix, level

partition, and development of the interpretive structural model and MIC-MAC

analysis.

5.3.1 Structural Self-Interaction Matrix

The first step of ISM is to analyse the contextual relationship. This study used the

contextual relationship of “will help achieve”. That indicates whether one factor will

help achieve another. Based on this contextual relationship, a structural self-

interaction matrix (SSIM) was then developed. In this research, 16 experts as stated

in previous section were consulted to identify the nature of the contextual


relationship among the factors. The experts were asked to compare two factors, Oi

and Oj.

When comparing two factors, Oi and Oj, the following four symbols were used

to denote the direction of relationship between two factors:

V: factor i will help achieve factor j

A: factor j will help achieve factor i

X: factors i and j will help achieve each other

O: factors i and j are unrelated.

After obtaining the individual responses, the Delphi technique was used to

generate consensus among the experts. The mode of each response was calculated.

In the first round, mode values which achieved 67 % indicated strong agreement

among all respondents. Out of 91 pair-wise comparisons, 70 had mode value which

achieved greater than 67% . In the second round, the 21 remaining comparisons

were taken back to the respondents indicating the weak agreement. All respondent in

first round participated in the second round ( 16 respondents). The respondents were

asked to reconsider their answers. After the second round, 16 pair-wise comparisons

had mode value which achieved greater than 67%. The majority opinion was taken

for the five remaining pair-wise comparisons. Based on the experts‟ consensus, the

SSIM was constructed as shown in Table 5.3.


Table 5.3: Structural self-interaction matrix

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 O X A X V V V V V V V V V

2 O A X V V V V V V V V V

3 A X V V V V V V V V V

4 V V V V V V V V V V

5 V V V V O V V V V

6 X X X O O A X X

7 X X O O A X X

8 X V X O V V

9 V V V V V

10 X O X X

11 O X X

12 V V

13 V

14

Table 5.3 shows the respondents‟ opinions on the comparison of two factors.

It depicts the existence and nature of relationship between the 14 factors. Examples

of each category of relationship are as follows:

The relationship between factors 1 and 6 (row 1 and column 6) is V, which

means factor 1 (Improved/adjustment of regulation on project

characteristic and execution project) will help achieve factor 6 (Support

and acceptance by other stakeholders).

The relationship between factors 1 and 4 (row 1 and column 4) is A, which

indicates that factor 4 (Legislative authority for implementing DB) will

help achieve factor 1 (Improved/adjustment of regulation on project

characteristic and execution project).


The relationship between factors 1 and 3 (row 1 column 3) is X, which

means factor 1 (Legislative authority for implementing DB) and factor 3

(Improved/adjustment of regulation on contractual arrangements) will help

achieve other.

The relationship between factors 1 and 2 (row 1 and column 2) is O, which

means factor 1 (Improved/adjustment of regulation on project

characteristic and execution project) and factor 2 (Improved/adjustment of

regulation on tendering system) are unrelated.

5.3.2 Reachability Matrix

Once the structural self-interaction matrix is developed, it is then transformed into a

binary matrix, called the initial reachability matrix, by substituting V, A, X and O

with 1 and 0 as per the case. The rules for the substitution of 1s and 0s are as follows:

If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability

matrix become 1 and the (j, i) entry becomes 0.

If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability

matrix is 0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.

If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability

matrix becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 1.

If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability

matrix becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 0.


The initial reachability matrix can be seen in Table 5.4. Examples of those

rules above are as follows:

The relationship between factors 1 and 6 is V. Thus, the matrix (1, 6) is 1

and matrix (6, 1) is 0.

The relationship between factors 1 and 4 is A. Thus, matrix (1, 4) is 0 and

matrix (4, 1) is 1.

The relationship between factors 1 and 3 is X. Thus, matrix (1, 3) is 1 and

matrix (3, 1) is 1.

The relationship between factors 1 and 2 is O. Thus, matrix (1, 2) is 0 and

matrix (2, 1) is 0.

Table 5.4: Initial reachability matrix

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 1 0* 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 0* 1 0* 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 1 0* 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0* 1 1 1 1

6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0* 0* 0 1 1

7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0* 0* 0 1 1

8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 1 1

9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10 0 0 0 0 0* 0* 0* 0 0 1 1 0 1 1

11 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0* 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

12 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0* 0 0* 0* 1 1 1

13 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1

14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

0*: There is no relationship between the factors


Once the transformation from SSIM to initial reachability was carried out

according to the rules above, any transitive links that may exist between different

variables were investigated. The transitivity means if factor i influences factor j and

factor j influences factor k, then factor i should influence factor k. It is applied to the

factors which have no relationship (O). For example, there is no relationship between

factor 1 and factor 2, thus in the initial reachability matrix, the cell entry (1, 2) is O.

However, on examining the transitive links in SSIM, it was found that factor 1 will

help achieve factor 5 and factor 5 will help achieve factor 2. Hence, according to step

4 of the ISM analysis, it can be inferred that factor 1 will help achieve factor 2. Thus,

the final reachability matrix shown in Table 5.5 for the cell entry (1, 2) is 1. Several

other entries were similarly changed (1*) and several entries were not changed

(O**).

In Table 5.5, the driving powers and dependencies of each factor are also

shown. The driving power of a particular factor is the total number of factors

(including itself) which it may influence. The dependence of a factor is the total

number of factors (including itself) which may influence it. These driving powers

and dependencies were then used in the MIC-MAC analysis, where the factors were

classified into four groups, namely, autonomous, independent, linkage, and

dependent factors.

Table 5.5: Final reachability matrix

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Driving

Power

1 1 1* 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13

2 1* 1 1* 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13

3 1 1* 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14

5 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1 13

6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 0 1 1 8

7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 0 1 1 8

8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

10 0 0 0 0 0** 1* 1* 0 0 1 1 0** 1 1 6

11 0 0 0 0 0 1* 1* 1 0 1 1 0** 1 1 7

12 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1* 0 1* 1* 1 1 1 8

13 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 6

14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 5


5.3.3 Level Partition

From the final reachability matrix, the reachability set and antecedent set for each

factor was found. For every element „pi‟, the reachability set R(pi) is defined as the

set of elements reachable from pi. R(pi) may be determined by inspecting the row in

Table 5.5 corresponding to pi. The element that the column represents is then

contained in the appropriate row in the R(pi) column in Table 5.6. Similarly, for

every element pj, an antecedent set is defined, which is the set of elements that

reaches pj. A(pj) may be determined by inspecting the column corresponding to pj.

For every row which contains 1 in column pj of the final reachability matrix, the

element that the row represents is contained in A(pj), and for all elements when i = j,

A(pi) = A (pj).

The elements in the top level of the hierarchy will not reach any elements

above their own level. As a result, the reachability set for a top-level element pi will

consist of the element itself and any other elements within the same level which the

element may reach, such as components of a strongly connected subset. The

antecedent set for a top-level element will consist of the element itself, elements

which reach it from lower levels, and any elements of a strongly connected subset

involving pi in the top level. As a result, the intersection of reachability and the

antecedent set will be the same as the reachability set if pi is in the top level. If the

element in question was not a top-level element, the reachability set would include

elements from higher levels, and the intersection of the reachability and the

antecedent sets would differ from the reachability set. Therefore, an element pi is a

top-level element if:

R(pi) = R (pi) ∩ A (pi).

Once the top-level factor is identified, it is separated out from the other factors

(Table 5.4). Then, the same process is repeated to find out the factors in the next

level. This process is continued until the level of each factor is found. Results for the

iteration process are summarised in Tables 5.6 to 5.11. The resulting levels help in

building the digraph and the final model.


Tables 5.6 to 5.11 show the iteration process that resulted in the level of each

factor. From the tables, it can be seen that factors 6, 7, 10,11 and 14 are in level I;

factor 13 is in level II; factors 8 and 12 are in level III; factor 9 is in level IV; factors

1,2,3 5 are in level V; and factor 4 is in level VI.

Table 5.6: Iteration I

Factor Reachability Antecedent Intersection Level

1 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5

2 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5

3 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5

4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 4

5 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5

6 6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ,9,10,11,12,13,14 6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14 I

7 6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14 6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14 I

8 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12

9 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

10 6,7,10,11,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 6,7,10,11,13,14 I

11 6,7,8,10 ,11, 13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 6,7,8,10 ,11, 13,14 I

12 6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,12

13 6,7,10,11,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13

14 6,7,10,11,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14 6,7,10,11,14 I

Table 5.7: Iteration II


1 1,2,3,5,8,9,12,13 1,2,3,4,5

2 1,2,3,5,8,9,12,13 1,2,3,4,5

3 1,2,3,5, 8,9,12,13 1,2,3,4,5

4 1,2,3,4,5,8,9, 12,13 4

5 1,2,3,5,8,9,12,13 1,2,3,4,5

8 8,9, 12,13 1,2,3,4,5, 8,9,12

9 8,9,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,8,9

12 8,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,12

13 13 1,2,3,4,5,8,9, 12,13 13 II

Table 5.8: Iteration III


1 1,2,3,5,8,9,12 1,2,3,4,5

2 1,2,3,5,8,9,12 1,2,3,4,5

3 1,2,3,5, 8,9,12 1,2,3,4,5

4 1,2,3,4,5,8,9, 12 4

5 1,2,3,5,8,9,12 1,2,3,4,5

8 8,9, 12 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,12 8,9,12 III

9 8,9,12 1,2,3,4,5,8,9

12 8,12 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,12 8,12 III


Table 5.9: Iteration IV


1 1,2,3,5,9 1,2,3,4,5

2 1,2,3,5,9 1,2,3,4,5

3 1,2,3,5,9 1,2,3,4,5

4 1,2,3,4,5,9 4

5 1,2,3,5,9 1,2,3,4,5

9 9 1,2,3,4,5,8,9 9 IV

Table 5.10: Iteration V


1 1,2,3,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,5 V

2 1,2,3,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,5 V

3 1,2,3,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,5 V

4 1,2,3,4,5 4

5 1,2,3,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,5 V

Table 5.11: Iteration VI


4 4 4 4 VI

5.3.4 Development of Structural Model

Having identified the final reachability matrix shown in Table 5.5 and level partition

(Tables 5.6 to 5.11), the structural model could be generated. If there is a relationship

between factors i and j, this is shown by an arrow which points from factor i to factor

j. This graph is called a directed graph or digraph. After accounting for the

transivities, the digraph was finally converted into the structural model (Figure 5.1).


(6)

Support and

acceptance by

other

stakeholders

(13)

Training on newly introduced

approaches to agency staff and

external parties

(8)

Acceptance of change by

agency staff

(9)

Agency‟s management vision

and support for

adopting/implementing DB is

behind the effort

(1)

Improved/adjustment

of regulation on

project characteristic

and execution project

(4)

Legislative authority for

implementing DB

(2)

Improved/adjustme

nt of regulation on

tendering system

(3)

Improved/adjustmen

t of regulation on

contractual

arrangements

(5)

Availability of

project risk approach

to managing project

risk

(12)

Socialisation and

communication with external

parties affected by change

(7)

Support and

acceptance by

industry

provider

(10)

Availability of

agency‟s staff

for

implementing

DB

(11) Communication

and knowledge

sharing among

staff to facilitate

DB

(14)

Availability of

pilot project

LEVEL I

LEVEL II

LEVEL III

LEVEL IV

LEVEL V

LEVEL VI

Figure 5.1: Structural model of factors that can promote potential implementation of DB project

delivery


In Figure 5.1, it can be seen that “support and acceptance by other

stakeholders” (F6), “support and acceptance by industry provider” (F7), “availability

of agency‟s staff for implementing DB” (F10), “communication and knowledge

sharing among staff to facilitate DB” (F11) and “availability of pilot project” (F14)

are in level I. “Training on newly introduced approaches to agency staff and external

parties” (F13) is in level II. “Acceptance of change by agency staff” (F8) and

“socialisation and communication with external parties affected by change” (F12) are

in level III. “Agency‟s management vision and support for adopting/implementing

DB is behind the effort” (F9) is in level IV; “improved/adjustment of regulation on

project characteristics and execution project” (F1), “improved/adjustment of

regulation on tendering system” (F2), “improved/adjustment of regulation on

contractual arrangements” (F3), “availability of project risk approach to managing

project risk” (F5) are in level V, and “legislative authority for implementing DB”

(F4) is in level VI.

Factor 4 (Legislative authority), which is placed in Level VI, can be described

as a root of the hierarchy. This factor helps achieve factor 1(Improved/adjustment of

regulation on project characteristic and execution project), factor 2

(Improved/adjustment of regulation on tendering system), factor 3

(Improved/adjustment of regulation on contractual arrangements), and factor 5

(Availability of project risk approach to managing project risk). Factors 1, 2, 3 and 5

help achieve each other, and they help achieve factor 9 (Agency‟s management

vision and support for adopting/implementing DB is behind the effort) which is in

level IV. Factor 9 helps achieve factors 8 (Acceptance of change by agency staff)and

factor 12 (Socialisation and communication with external parties affected by

change), and these factors help achieve each other. Factors 8 and 12 help achieve

factor 13 (Training on newly introduced approaches to agency staff and external

parties). Factor 13 helps achieve factor 6 (Support and acceptance by other

stakeholders), factor 7 (Support and acceptance by industry provider), factor 10

(Availability of agency‟s staff for implementing DB), factor 11 (Communication and

knowledge sharing among staff to facilitate DB), and factor 14 (Availability of pilot

project) which are located at the top of the hierarchy. These factors help achieve each

other.


5.3.5 Driving Power- Dependence Diagram

The next analysis is to investigate the driving power and the dependency of the

factors. Based on the final reachability matrix shown in Table 5.5, dependence power

of each factor is the sum of 1s in the corresponding column. The driving power of

each factor is attained by summing 1s in the relevant row. The factors are classified

into four clusters based on their driving power and dependency as shown in Figure

5.2. The dependence power can be plotted as horizontal coordinate while the driving

power can be plotted as vertical coordinate.

Figure 5.2:Driving Power-Dependence Diagram

Quadrant I shows the first cluster of the factors, these are “autonomous factors”

with weak driving and dependence powers. These factors are relatively disconnected

from the system with which they have only few links. There is no factor plotted in

this cluster.


Quadrant II represents the second cluster of factors, known as “independent

factors” having strong driving power but weak dependence. There are four factors

falling in the independent cluster namely „Improved/Adjustment of Regulation on

Project Characteristic and Execution Project (F1)‟, „Improved/Adjustment of

Regulation on Tendering system (F2)‟, „Improved/Adjustment of Regulation on

Contractual Arrangement (F3)‟, „Legislative authority for implementing the DB

project delivery system (F4)‟ and „Availability of project risk approach to managing

project risk (F5)‟

Quadrant III represents the third cluster of factors known as “linkage factors”

having strong driving power and dependence. The linkage cluster includes „Support

and Acceptance by other stakeholders (F6‟), „Support and Acceptance by industry

provider (F7)‟, „Acceptance of change by agency staff (F8)‟, „Agency‟s management

vision and support for adopting/implementing DB is behind the effort (F9)‟ and

„Socialization and Communication with External parties affected by change (F12)‟.

Quadrant IV shows, the fourth cluster known as the “dependent factors” with

weak driving power but strong dependence. This cluster consists of „Availability of

agency‟s staff for implementing the DB project delivery system (F10)‟,

„Communication and Knowledge sharing among staff to facilitate DB (F11)‟,

„Training on newly introduced approaches to agency staff and external parties (F13)‟

and „Availability of pilot project (F14)‟.

5.4 SUMMARY

This chapter provided a detailed process of the structural model for implementing the

DB project deliver system in road infrastructure projects. This model is useful to

provide and define a better understanding of the DB system which is perceived as a

complex problem or issue. This also assists the agency (Directorate General Bina

Marga-Ministry of Public Works) to understand the hierarchy and relationship

among factors that can promote the potential implementation of the DB system.


Finally, it assists the agency/ owner to focus and prioritise the factors based on the

hierarchy structure.

From the ISM result, it identifies that the „legislative authority‟ is the

foundation of the other factors which is positioned at the level VI (six). It is then

followed by „improved regulation on project characteristic‟, „procurement procedure‟

and „contractual arrangement‟; and „availability of project risk approach‟ in level V.

„Agency and management‟s support for implementing the DB project delivery

system‟ is placed in level IV before „acceptance of change by agency staff‟ and

„socialisation and communication with external parties affected by DB system‟ in

level III. „Training on newly introduced approaches to agency staff and external

parties‟ is in level II and the highest level consist of five factors namely „support and

acceptance by other stakeholder‟, „support and acceptance by industry provider‟,

„availability of agency‟s staff for implementing the DB system‟, „communication and

knowledge sharing among staff to facilitate the DB system‟ and „availability of pilot

project‟.

The analysis which classifies the factors into four clusters (autonomous,

independent, linkage, and dependent) was then conducted. However there is no

factor in the autonomous cluster. In independent cluster there are five factors

namely: „improved/adjustment of regulation on project characteristic and execution

project‟, „improved/adjustment of regulation on tendering system‟,

„improved/adjustment of regulation on contractual arrangement‟, „legislative

authority for implementing the DB project delivery system‟ and „availability of

project risk approach to managing project risk‟. The linkage cluster includes

„support and acceptance by other stakeholders‟, „support and acceptance by industry

provider‟, „acceptance of change by agency staff‟, „agency‟s management vision and

support for adopting/implementing DB is behind the effort‟ and „socialization and

communication with external parties affected by change‟. Finally the last cluster

consists of „availability of agency‟s staff for implementing the DB project delivery

system‟, „communication and knowledge sharing among staff to facilitate DB‟,

„training on newly introduced approaches to agency staff and external parties‟ and

„availability of pilot project‟.

Chapter 6: Findings and Discussion 130

Chapter 6: Findings and Discussion

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter further explains the results and findings of the data analyses reported in

Chapter 4 (Delphi Questionnaire Survey) and Chapter 5 (Pair-Wise Comparison

Questionnaire Survey using ISM), with the insights integrated with the theory and

concepts identified in the literature review in Chapter 2.

The analysis, interpretation and literature review support the findings which

crystallised into the implementation model. The development of the model enabled

the author to accomplish the overall aim of this research, that is, to develop and

recommend a model for implementing the DB project delivery system in the

Indonesian road infrastructure project delivery system.

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section discusses the

stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery system. The concept and

advantages of the DB project delivery system are discussed. Next, the barriers to

implementing the DB project delivery system and factors that can promote the

potential implementation of the DB are discussed. Finally, the model for

implementing the DB project delivery system is presented, followed by a summary

of this chapter.

6.2 STAKEHOLDERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF THE DB PROJECT

DELIVERY SYSTEM

Prior to implementing the DB project delivery system, the stakeholders should

possess an understanding of the DB system. Understanding implies a sufficient level

of abilities concerning an object of knowledge. It is related to the ability to use the

concepts to deal with the object (Bereiter 2002). Therefore, in this study, the

understanding of the DB project delivery system involves the concepts and

advantages of such a project delivery system.


This discussion of the stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery

system is presented in two sub-sections: firstly, the concept of the DB project

delivery system; and secondly, the advantages of the DB project delivery system.

The discussion about the DB advantages is based on the findings and discussion

about the DB concept.

6.2.1 Understanding the Concept of the DB Project Delivery System

As identified in the discussion in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3.2), three factors were used in

assessing the stakeholders‟ understanding of the concept of the DB system, namely,

the definition of the DB project delivery system, DB procurement and contract

characteristics, and DB project characteristics.

The DB project delivery system has a range of definitions. However, each

definition has an identical focus on the factor of single responsibility. The findings

from the questionnaire show the Delphi panel members highly agreed that the

definition of DB project delivery system includes:

The client deals directly with the constructor for the complete design and

construction

The constructor/design builder has single responsibility

The constructor will design and construct the project

The project is executed by a single entity/organisation.

All these factors signify that a DB project features a single entity which is

responsible for both design and construction, as highlighted by Konchar and Sanvido

(1998), Arditi and Lee (2003) and Hanscomb (2004). It can be stated that the road

construction project stakeholders in Indonesia have a good understanding of the

definition of DB project delivery.

132 Chapter 6: Findings and Discussion

DB procurement and contract characteristics were also rated highly by the

panel members. Those DB characteristics include: DB integrates design and

construction into one contract; the design and construction are in one procurement;

the tendering process can be conducted by limited tender; the contract is based on

lump sum fixed price basis; and the design and construction are paid in a single

financial transaction. The high level of agreement that DB integrates design and

construction into one contract is consistent with the DB characteristic highlighted by

Barrie and Paulson (1992), the National Society of Professional Engineers(1995) and

Ling and Chong (2005). The characteristic that the design and construction are in one

procurement was highlighted by Akintoye (1994), Songer and Molenaar (1997) and

Lam et al. (2004). The panel members were in agreement that the tendering process

can be conducted by limited tender, which is also stated in the Indonesian

Government Regulation No. 29, 2000, on Construction Service Implementation; No

59, 2010 (amendment of Indonesian Government Regulation No. 29, 2000). The

high level of agreement that the DB contract characteristic is based on lump sum

fixed price is consistent with the studies conducted by the FHWA (2006), Seng and

Yosuf (2006) and the Ministry of Public Works (2008). The DB system is under one

contract, and the panel members highly agreed that the design and construction are

paid in a single financial transaction as highlighted by Seng and Yosuf (2006).

Despite the high rating of agreement with most of the DB procurement and contract

characteristics, the panel members rated the characteristic that DB can include

engineering, procurement and construction as “medium”. It is likely that some of the

participants assumed that engineering, procurement and construction are parts of the

DB project delivery system while others considered that the engineering procurement

and construction is another project delivery system which is similar to the DB project

delivery system.

The panel members had high levels of agreements for several of the DB

projects characteristics, namely: there are varied tasks in the project scope; there is

efficient coordination, control and monitoring from start to finish; specialists are

used in the project scope; the projects use advanced technology; and DB can be used

for high risk projects that could endanger public safety, human life and the

environment. These agreements indicate that the DB project delivery system is

appropriate for complex and high risk projects. Complex projects require efficient


coordination, control and monitoring from start to finish, need specialists and have

varied tasks in project scope as highlighted by Baccarini (1996) . High risk projects

can also result in hazards and endangers the surrounding environment. This is also

advocated by the Law of Indonesian Government No. 18, 1999, on Construction

Services and the work of the ASCE (2008) which highlighted the use of DB for

complex and high risk projects.

The Delphi panel members rated medium levels of agreement on several other

characteristics of the DB system. They remained apparently unsure about the size

and value of the DB projects. This reflects the finding drawn from the research

conducted by Molenaar and Songer (1999) that there is no standard size of DB

projects. Some previous researchers have argued that DB is suitable for small and

medium projects, while others have argued that DB is suitable for large projects and

projects with values greater than $50 million. The participants had low levels of

agreement on the characteristics of DB projects related to: a large number of

different systems need to be put together and there is a large number of interfaces

between elements; the projects usually undergo a series of revisions during

construction and interrelationship between activities is required; and the projects

involve construction work on a confined site with difficult access and require many

trades to work in close proximity at the same time. This indicates the participants

perceived that those understandings do not refer to the road construction

characteristic, although the DB projects have those characteristics. The participants

proposed some other characteristics for DB projects, which are: DB projects require

specific skills, and they can be executed by varied construction methods. The DB

requirement for specific skills is similar to the characteristic that DB projects need

specialists in the project scope. Another perception of the panel was that DB can be

executed by varied construction methods. In the DB project delivery system, the

constructor is allowed to use innovation to execute the projects as long as the result

of the project is consistent with the project goal, as highlighted by Arditi and Lee

(2003) and WYDOT (2002).


6.2.2 Understanding the Advantages of the DB Project Delivery System

The discussion in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3.2) highlighted the advantages of the DB

project delivery system. All of the advantages were rated highly by the Delphi panel

members. This indicates their awareness of the DB advantages. The advantages were

classified into five groups, namely, shorter duration, lower cost, better quality,

allowing innovation, and better management. This is consistent with the position of

the National Society of Professional Engineers (1995), FHWA (2006), Gibson et al.

(2007) and Hanna et al. (2008) that DB has several benefits compared to other

project delivery systems including shortened duration, improved cost, improved

quality, innovation and better management through single responsibility. Generally,

the key findings on the panel members‟ understandings of the advantages of the DB

project delivery system can be synthesised in each of the five groups.

Shorter Duration

The DB project delivery system can result in shorter duration of the project. This is

achieved by the simultaneous contracting of the design and construction, and because

the procurement is only conducted once which can reduce the long procurement

time. This finding is in agreement with Konchar and Sanvido (1998) and FHWA

(2006) who stated that DB is very effective in terms of time because of its delivery

speed, where the need to bid for construction apart from design services is

eliminated. Fast tracking through overlapping design and construction also leads to

shorter duration in this system. The construction can be commenced when the design

is being carried out, as highlighted by Chan (2000), Beard et al. (2001), Abi Karam

(2002), Lam (2005) and Gibson et al. (2007). In addition, early determination of the

material and other components can shorten the duration of the DB process as

highlighted by Gibson (2007) and the FHWA (2006). Optimum use of the experience

and knowledge (constructability) can shorten the duration of the project. This is

supported by the studies conducted by Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy (2000),

FHWA (2006), Gibson et al. (2007) and AASHTO (2008) which stated that

constructability gives the DB contractors opportunities to accelerate the projects

using their expertise.


Lower Cost

Lower cost is another advantage that the DB project delivery system offers, as

highlighted by Molenaar and Gransberg (2001), FHWA (2006) and AASHTO

(2008). This is also supported by AASHTO (2008) which found that the DB project

delivery system can save cost. The Delphi panel members were in high agreement

with this advantage of the DB project delivery system, in particular in regard to:

having the designer and contractor in the same team; early cost certainty; early

project completion; and optimum use of the experience and knowledge

(constructability) that the constructor/design builder provides.

Lower cost can arise by reason of several indicators such as the designer and

constructor being in one team as highlighted by the National Society of Civil

Engineering (1995). Collaboration between the designer and constructor through

teamwork can avoid bidding costs because the tender is conducted only once. Costs

may be further reduced by the fact that the owner does not have to award separate

design and construction contracts or deal with the disputes between the designer and

contractor which invariably occur when separate contracts are let (Esquire 2011).

The early determination of certain cost leads to lower costs. By using a lump

sum contract before completion, there is no additional cost borne by the owner if

there are changes in the construction stage, as has been observed by AASHTO

(2008).

Early project completion can also contribute to the lower cost. This is

supported by the research conducted by the Science Application International

Corporation (2003) and Seng and Yosuf (2006). Their studies highlighted that time is

money; therefore, there are considerable project cost savings when completing

projects earlier.

Optimum use of the experience and knowledge of the contractor

(constructability) causes lower cost. Contractors with broad experience and

knowledge can use their ability to propose the most efficient technology or material

to save project costs. In the DB project delivery system, the contractor is able to


employ any technology and material as long as the project goal is fulfilled. This is

supported by Ndekugri and Turner (1994), Chan (2000) and Esquire (2011) who

observed that when designers and contractors work closely together as a team to

evaluate construction alternatives, perform value engineering and consider

constructability during the design process, significant cost savings may accrue to the

owner. Therefore, lower cost can be achieved.

Better Quality

Another advantage perceived in the DB project delivery system is better quality.

Optimum use of constructability by the design builder can lead to better quality in

the project. This is consistent with AASHTO (2008) which found that the use of

constructability has a connection to the quality of the projects, whereby the DB

project delivery uses the best value method. The Delphi panel members were in high

agreement that the DB project delivery system: enables the optimum use of the

experience and knowledge of constructors (constructability) during the design stage;

allows the use of the best value method to assess the quality of design as well as to

assess the qualification of the constructor/design builders; can avoid reworks; can

avoid different interpretations among the staff involved; and can avoid the possibility

of failure.

The DB project delivery system enables contractors to use their experience and

knowledge, creating many options that could lead to improved project quality. This

is aligned with the observations by AASHTO (2008) that the use of best value

designers can be rewarded with projects that are above minimum standards and that

best value designers often make choices that increase the value of the project without

substantially increasing the cost.

Allowing the owner to use the best value method can result in better quality.

This method enables the owner to assess the best design quality regardless of the

cost. Accordingly, the owner can also assess which contractor is eligible to receive

the tender as highlighted by AASHTO (2008).


The DB project delivery systems can avoid the repetition of failed work. The

contractor is responsible for the design and construction. They will use the best

alternatives to produce design and construction to avoid reworks and the possibility

of failure. Accordingly, better quality can be achieved. This is supported by the

position of AASHTO (2008) that optimum experience and knowledge

(constructability) is used in the DB project delivery system. Therefore, reworks and

the possibility of project failure can be avoided.

Having one team in design and construction means that the same perceptions

and interpretations are shared in the conducted projects. If there are diverse

perceptions among staff, these can be overcome and aligned quickly. As the design

and construction are under one entity in the DB project delivery system, as

highlighted by the National Society of Professional Engineers (1995), the problem of

different interpretations can be avoided. Therefore, the project can be conducted

properly and result in quality outcomes.

Enhanced Innovation

The panel members were also in high agreement that the DB project delivery system

allows contractors to have significant freedom and flexibility. This is aligned with

the study by WYDOT (2002) which identified that DB enables the design builder to

express more innovation. The innovation may include management, and the use of

any materials, equipment and modern construction techniques. Even though the

designer and builder are in one team, they can use their separate strengths to develop

new designs and techniques which are innovative and contemporary. This is

consistent with Akintoye and Fitzgerald (1995) and Turner (1995) who highlighted

that using the experience and buildability knowledge of the contractor and designer

can result in a more technically efficient project.

The panel‟s agreement about innovations in management such as

transparency is similar to the finding by the Resource System Group (2007)

thatmany departments of transport are increasing transparency and open

communication among project developers, review agencies and the general public.

Innovation in management can also improve the teamwork to reduce the amount of


time and control information flows due to the direct and open communication

between the client and contractor (Rowlinson 1987). Innovation in the use of

materials, equipment, construction techniques and technologies is also encouraged in

the DB project delivery system, as highlighted by Arditi and Lee (2003).

Better Management

Another benefit of the DB project delivery system is better management as

highlighted by Howell and Cliff (1995), the National Society of Professional

Engineers (1995) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (2002). This is due

to the single responsibility that the DB project possesses. The panel members were in

agreement that better management is a benefit of the DB project delivery system.

Several indicators/factors denote better management in such a system. The main

factor is the single responsibility that can lead to minimum conflict and disputes,

streamline the coordination between the design and construction teams, reduce the

administrative burdens, arbitrate between distinct design and construction entities,

avoid the complexities of the multiple contracts and avoid the adversarial role

amongst the parties.

These findings indicate that the panel members had similar awareness

regarding the concepts and advantages of the DB project delivery system. Moreover,

the stakeholders represented by the Delphi panel members can be said to have a good

understanding of the concept and advantages of the DB project delivery system. It is

indicated that the panel members achieved high levels of agreement with the concept

and advantages of the DB project delivery system.


6.3 BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING THE DB PROJECT DELIVERY

SYSTEM AND FACTORS THAT CAN PROMOTE DB SYSTEM

POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION

Based on the findings on the stakeholders‟ understanding of the DB project delivery

system, there are identical perceptions, views and understandings by the various

stakeholders regarding this system. In fact, it is possible for this system to be

implemented. However, there are several barriers that hinder the implementation of

such a system. To overcome the barriers, it is necessary to identify the factors that

can promote the potential implementation of the system.

This section is divided into two parts. The first part focuses on the barriers to

implementing the DB system, and the second part examines the factors that can

promote DB potential implementation.

6.3.1 Barriers to Implementing the DB Project Delivery System

Even though the DB project delivery system is an attractive project delivery system

in public infrastructure, this system has not yet been implemented in Indonesian road

infrastructure projects. There are several barriers that obstruct the DB project

delivery system in its development and potential implementation. Upon completion

of the Delphi survey, 21 barriers were identified.

The findings on the barriers reflect the consensual opinions of a group of broad

knowledge experts on both the theory and practice aspects of the DB project delivery

system in road infrastructure projects. While not meant to be exhaustive, they serve

as a basis for finding solutions to the barriers in the Indonesian road construction

context. This section discusses the overview of the Delphi results concerning the

barriers that impede the potential implementation of the DB project delivery system.

As identified in Chapter 4, the 21 barriers are categorised by themes into the four

groups of regulation, client competencies, other participants‟/stakeholders‟

competencies and adaptability.


Lack of Detailed Legislation and Regulation

Regulation and legislation is crucial, as it is one of the key drivers that will compel

the implementation of a system. The absence of detailed regulation leads to

impediments to DB implementation. Detailed regulation on project characteristics is

needed to distinguish which project is appropriate for the DB project delivery

system. This is consistent with the FHWA (2006) which observed that the lack of

regulatory status leads to hurdles in implementing the DB project delivery system.

Lack of regulation on the DB project characteristics, procurement or

tendering procedure, contractual arrangement and risk allocation in managing the DB

projects is considered to be the obstacle that can prevent DB potential

implementation. This finding is also supported by the study by WYDOT (2002)

which indicated that project characteristics, procurement process, contract provision

and risk allocation are in line with laws and regulations. It is also consistent with the

study conducted by Soemoardi and Pribadi (2010) who found that there is a lack of

adequate legal frameworks for implementing the DB project delivery system in

Indonesia.

Detailed regulations on project characteristics, tendering procedure and

contractual arrangement and risk allocation are required prior to implementing the

DB system, as highlighted by Hanna et al. (2008). Without regulation on project

characteristics, the client/owner/agency cannot decide whether projects can

appropriately be delivered using the DB system. Lack of these regulations is

experienced by the Directorate General Bina Marga-Ministry of Public Works in

implementing the DB project delivery system. Subsequently, it can lead to unclear

perceptions in implementing the DB project delivery system.

Lack of Client Capabilities

Another finding with regard to the barriers to the DB system potential

implementation is the lack of client capabilities. The capabilities of the client are

crucial for the client/ owner/agency in implementing the DB project delivery system.

This is supported by Hanna et al. (2008) who highlighted that before the client


develops capabilities, the likelihood of problems arising in the DB project delivery

system may be higher. Therefore, client capabilities are very important in

implementing the DB project delivery system. There are six main barriers regarding

the client‟s capabilities, namely, lack of experience, lack of skill, lack of knowledge,

lack of understanding, lack of effort to implement the DB project delivery system,

and lack of adequate staff.

Lack of experience and knowledge regarding the DB project delivery system

can hinder the project client/agency in implementing the system. Similar findings

were drawn from research conducted by Pearson and Skues (1999) and Ling and Poh

(2008). The lack of skills, understanding, knowledge and experience is also an

obstacle regarding the capability of the client. This was also evident in the studies by

Migliaccio (2007) and Gibson (2007) which found that lack of skills and lack of

understanding contributed to hindering the DB system. In addition, lack of adequate

staff can impede the DB potential implementation. This is similar to the position of

Ling and Poh (2008) who found that the lack of manpower and resources is a

problem that owners face in the DB system.

Lack Other Participants’/ Stakeholders’ Capabilities

The Delphi questionnaire survey results identified another group of barriers to

implementing the DB project delivery system, which is the lack of other

stakeholders‟/participants‟ capabilities (e.g. design builder/contractor).This includes

a limited number of experienced and skilled personnel employed by the designer or

contractor, lack of the DB experts, and lack of design capability.

The designer/contractor must have skills and experience in order to meet the

owner‟s expectation as highlighted by Ling and Chong (2005) on the project to be

delivered using the DB project delivery system. In the Indonesian construction

industry, the DB project delivery system has only been conducted in the private

sector and state-owned enterprises. This contributes to low numbers of available

experienced and skilled personnel. Therefore, it is not easy to find design builders or

contractors who have ability to carry out the projects using the DB system. Ling and

Chong (2005) also highlighted that the lack of DB experts and lack of design


capability of the DB contractors are problems that owners meet in implementing the

DB project delivery system. Input from the DB experts is useful for the owner in

implementing an unfamiliar system such as the DB project delivery system. Lack of

design capability of the contractor will have implication for the service quality of the

contractor. Consequently, this will affect to the quality of the projects.

Adaptability

Based on the results reported in Chapter 4 (Section 4.4), adaptability is another group

of barriers that can obstruct the DB potential implementation. Generally, it is

difficult to adapt to a new system. An organisation or institution needs to become

familiar with a new system, such as the DB project delivery system, for successful

implementation. This is consistent with the FHWA report (2004) which found that

the US Department of Transportation acknowledged that is not accustomed to the

DB delivery system, so it was not easy for the department to oversee the DB projects

conducted by the states.

Rather than implement an unfamiliar and new system, a client/owner/agency

would tend to prefer the current system. In implementing the DB project delivery

system in road infrastructure projects, the owner is more likely to prefer to

implement the traditional DBB system rather than implementing DB because they

are not familiar with the new system. This is consistent with Ho (1995) and FHWA

(2004) who pointed that most clients preferred the traditional DBB system to the DB

system since most local companies were accustomed to the DBB system. Resistance

to change by owners and other participants is also a barrier to implementing the DB

project delivery system. This is supported by Ho et al. (1996), Migliaccio (2007) and

Hanna et al. (2008) who found that resistance to change is a barrier to adopting a new

project delivery system. It also makes the owners/clients wary to adopt this system as

confirmed by Fahmy and Jergeas (2004). Furthermore, the client may not be

confident to manage the DB project delivery system. This is consistent with Yates

(1995) and Ho et al. (1996) who explained that clients may have no confidence in

managing the new system which is still being learned and tested.


Lack of promotion of the DB system can hinder the DB potential

implementation. This is consistent with Pearson and Skues (1999) who found that the

lack of promotion of DB within the industry may hinder further adoption. Lack of

attention from clients can contribute to barriers in the implementation of the DB

project delivery system. The client may tend not to use the DB project delivery

system because it is an unfamiliar system. Therefore, the clients/owners/agencies are

not aware of the benefits of the DB system as highlighted by Hemlin (1999).

6.3.2 Factors that Promote the Potential Implementation of the DB Project

Delivery System

To enable the implementation of the DB project delivery system, there are

factors that can promote the potential implementation. This section discusses the

findings of the Delphi results regarding the factors that can promote the DB project

delivery system. These factors are also expected to overcome the barriers to

implementing the DB project delivery system.

Regulation

Regulation is an essential factor to enable the implementation of the DB project

delivery system. The findings from the Delphi questionnaire indicated that there are a

number of regulation-related factors that can promote the potential implementation

of the DB project delivery system, namely: legislative authority for implementing the

DB project delivery system; adjustment/improved regulation on project

characteristics; adjustment of regulations on contractual arrangements; adjustment of

the tendering system; and availability of project risk approach.

As the DB project delivery system has not yet been implemented, legislative

authority is required to permit the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system. By possessing legislative authority, the government has the power

to make law and regulations regarding the potential implementation of the DB

project delivery system. This is consistent with Migliaccio (2007) who found that

legislative authority is needed to allow changes in the project delivery methods. In


Indonesian road infrastructure projects, the authority to implement the DB project

delivery system should be given to Ministry of Public Works. This institution is on

behalf of Indonesian Government who has authority in road infrastructure provision.

This is in line with Law No. 38, 2004 on road infrastructure, whereby the

government has authority in road infrastructure provision. Therefore, the authority

of the implementation of the DB project delivery system should be given to Ministry

of Public Works.

The DB project delivery system is an attractive and permissible system in

Indonesia and this is implicitly stated in the Law of Indonesian Government No. 18,

1999, on Construction Services Regulation (Section 16 clause 3). However,

Indonesian laws and regulations such as Indonesian Government Regulation No. 29,

2000 on Construction Service Implementation; No 59, 2010 (amendment of

Indonesian Government Regulation No. 29, 2000 on Construction Service

Implementation); No. 54, 2010 on Government Good and Service Procurement; and

No 72, 2012 ( Amendment of Indonesian Regulation No 54, 2010) do not provide the

detail ones in regard to the potential implementation of the DB project delivery

system. Therefore, regulations on project characteristics, contractual arrangements,

risk approaches and tendering systems need to be adjusted or improved. A similar

finding was drawn from the research conducted by the National Society of

Professional Engineers (1995), which indicated that the adoption of the DB project

delivery without modification of current statutes and regulations can result in

consequences that are contrary to the public interest. The need for detailed regulation

on project characteristics and procurement and contract processes is similar to the

findings of the study conducted by Hanna et al. (2008).

Risk is an inherent part of every project. To implement the DB project delivery

system, understanding, assessing and allocating risk is crucial. Therefore there is a

need to develop a standardised approach in managing the DB project delivery

system. This is consistent with the study by Hanna et al. (2008) who highlighted that

it is important for risk to be standardised.


Capabilities of Client and Other Parties

To address the lack of the necessary skills and experience, consideration should

be given to obtaining adequate skills, knowledge and experience such as leading,

planning, organising, and coordinating design and construction works in conducting

project using the DB project delivery system; understanding on DB procurement

process and contract; establishing good relationship among project participants; and

leadership skill. This can be accommodated by providing training on the new

system. The aim of the training would be to educate the staff of the owner and other

parties involved in the DB project delivery system as the DB project delivery system

requires skills that are different to the skills required in administrating traditional

DBB for road infrastructure projects. This is consistent with the studies conducted

by FHWA (2006) and Gibson (2007) which highlighted that transportation agencies

should invest in the DB training before attempting to execute their first DB project.

The training should not only include the owner‟s personnel but also the engineers

and construction contractors who will compete for the DB projects. The need for

training and education associated with the DB project delivery system has also been

highlighted by the National Society of Professional Engineers (1995). Jergeas and

Fahmy (2006) pointed out that the lack of skilled personnel can be overcome by

formal training and education with others who have already implemented the DB

project delivery system. Similarly, pilot projects also need to be carried out in order

for the owners and other parties involved in the DB project delivery system to gain

experience, as suggested by Gibson (2007). Paradigm change from traditional

systems into an integrated system (DB) also requires the support of a change in

regulatory aspects of the contract, the role of stakeholders and institutions. The

existence of the pilot project and the training conducted by Ministry of Public Works

will assist in the potential implementation of the DB project delivery system. This is

consistent with the report of the Ministry of Public Works stating the need for the

pilot project in trying to develop a new system of contracts such as the input contract

to performance based contract (Department of Public Works 2007).


Management

Based on the findings on the promoting factors related to management, five factors

are identified. The first factor is communication and knowledge sharing among staff.

Communication and knowledge sharing is required to transfer and share the

knowledge from skilled staff or upper-level staff to other staff who do not possess

adequate knowledge related to the DB project delivery system. This is supported by

Gibson (2007) who found that communication must be optimised among the parties

including staff. It is also supported by Gil (2001) and Iansiti (1995) who found that

knowledge sharing to initiate the implementation of the DB project delivery system

among the staff of the client is important. By sharing knowledge, for instance from

experienced, skilled and knowledgeable staff, participants may find it easier to

articulate and convert their implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge.

The second factor is communication and socialisation with the external parties

involved in the implementation of the DB project delivery system, especially to

inform that owner who will employ the DB project delivery system as highlighted by

Migliaccio (2007). The importance factor is also supported by Seng and Yosuf

(2006) who stated that effective communication has never been ignored as one the

driving factors in the selection of the DB procurement method. Direct contact

between the client and the contractor as provided by the DB system aligns the

communication and enables the contractor to respond and to adapt more promptly to

the client‟s needs. Lack of information can create obstacles in the implementation.

The third factor is the availability of the owner‟s staff for implementing the DB

project delivery system. This is consistent with Migliaccio (2007) who found that

allocating insufficient resources to implementing change constitutes a barrier to

implementation. This may be due to lack of resources within agency/client/owner

organisation and lack of staff to be involved in the implementation effort. These

circumstances can be overcome by identifying the expert and dedicated staff and

assigning them to the potential implementation of the DB project delivery system.

The fourth factor is the acceptance of change by the owner‟s staff as highlighted by

Migliaccio (2007). It is expected that encouraging the acceptance by staff can avoid

the obstacles to potential implementation of the DB project delivery system. The


encouragement can be done by actions of the top level management of the

owner/client/agency to promote the DB project delivery system. The fifth factor is

the agency‟s management vision and support for adopting/implementing DB. This

vision and support is essential to promote the DB project delivery system. This is

consistent with the study by Migliaccio (2007) who found that the supportive

management of the client/owner/agency is needed in the implementation of the DB

project delivery system to influence staff and other parties to support the

implementation.

External Conditions

External conditions that were indicated as important factors for promoting DB

potential implementation were the support and acceptance by relevant parties and

support from industry providers. Participation from industry providers is essential in

implementing the DB project delivery system. This is supported by Migliaccio

(2007) who found that acceptance by the industry provider can contribute to the

success of project delivery system changes. If the industry providers accept the

change, they can drive public perceptions. This can be done by having a champion

for the implementation of the DB project delivery system, seeking credibility of the

DB project delivery system and involving industry provider associations in the

process. Therefore, promotion of the acceptance of the DB project delivery system

needs to be conducted.

Acceptance and support from other relevant parties is also required. Resistance

to change among other parties such as local agencies and government agencies

involved in the project delivery system can hinder the its potential implementation of

the DB project delivery system. This is consistent with Migliaccio (2007) who found

that relevant parties are often resistant to the new system; Migliaccio suggests that

the parties can be involved in earlier stages of the process in order to build support.


6.4 MODEL FOR IMPLEMETING THE DB PROJECT DELIVERY

SYSTEM

Based on the findings discussed above relating to the barriers to implementing

the DB project delivery system and factors that can promote the DB potential

implementation, a basis of the overall scenario of implementing the DB project

delivery system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia has been established. As

explained previously, there are various barriers in the way of carrying out the DB

project delivery system. Subsequently, the main issue for implementing the DB

system is identifying the factors that can encourage the DB potential implementation.

These factors are also expected to overcome those barriers.

Identifying the factors is the initial stage. To deal with a complex issue such as

implementing the DB project delivery system in the Indonesian road infrastructure

project context, it is necessary to determine the priorities and the relationships

between the factors. This can be arranged into a hierarchy of factors. By knowing the

hierarchy of the factors, the factors that have to be prioritised and given attention can

be identified.

The results from the interpretive structural analysis which were presented in

Chapter 5 (Section 5.3) demonstrate that there are six levels mapped against the 14

high rating factors that can promote the potential implementation of the DB system

in Indonesian road infrastructure projects. Figure 6.1 illustrates the interpretive

structural model.


(6)

Support and

acceptance by

other

stakeholders

(13)

Training on newly introduced

approaches to agency staff and

external parties

(8)


agency staff

(9)


and support for

adopting/implementing DB is

behind the effort

(1)

Improved/adjustment

of regulation on

Project Characteristic

and execution project

(4)


implementing DB PDS

(2)

Improved/

adjustment of

regulation on

tendering system

(3)

Improved/

adjustment of

regulation on

contractual

arrangement

(5)

Availability of

project risk approach

to managing project

risk

(12)

Socialisation and


parties affected by change

(7)

Support and

acceptance by

industry

providers

(10)

Availability of

agency‟s staff

for

implementing

DB PDS

(11) Communication

and knowledge

sharing among

staff to facilitate

DB

(14)

Availability of

pilot project

LEVEL I

LEVEL II

LEVEL III

LEVEL IV

LEVEL V

LEVEL VI

Figure 6.1 : Interpretive Structural Model for Implementing the DB Project Delivery System In

Indonesian Road Infrastructure Projects


Level VI is the lowest level of the hierarchy established. The lowest level

illustrates that the level contains factors which are the root of all the other factors.

The ISM suggests that the top driving power lies with the legislative authority factor.

As legislative authority has emerged as having the maximum driving power in the

IS-based model, it has to be considered as the root of the hierarchical structure of this

model. The dominance of this factor is not surprising because prior to instituting a

relatively new system (such as the DB project delivery system), legislative authority

is required. The legislation is required to authorise the Indonesian Ministry of Public

Works to implement the DB project delivery system specifically, and it constitutes

power for implementing the DB system. This is consistent with Migliaccio (2007)

who found that a transport agency needs legislative authority before instituting

changes to its procurement and finance strategies. Although the DB project delivery

is an attractive system, the Law of Indonesian Government No. 18, 1999, does not

explicitly state the use of the DB project delivery system. Therefore, there is a need

for an adjustment in the legislative authority to permit implementation of the DB

project delivery system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

Adjusted/improved regulation regarding the project characteristics, contractual

arrangements and tendering system and the availability of project risk approach are

the factors with the next highest driving power and are placed on the second level,

indicating that these factors need to be given attention. Given the legislative authority

for implementing the DB project delivery system, there is a need to strengthen the

legislation authority by adjusting and improving the related regulations under the

legislative framework to achieve the objectives. It was surprising that both political

and economic factor were excluded as important factors. However, legislative

authority could be triggered by a combination of both political and economic factors

in Indonesian context whereby the legislative authority which is a part of regulation

factor. Regulation could be produced or enacted by parliament which is formed by

elections. As well as political factor, the economic factor could trigger legislative

authority. For instance due to the budget limitation, the provision of the road

infrastructure could be given to private body. However, in this case, both political

and economic environment factor do not trigger the legislative authority factor.

Political and economic environment are not significant in implementing the DB

project delivery system. Actually, the provision of all road infrastructure projects is


authorised by Ministry of Public Work –Directorate General Bina Marga. The one

that only need is to reassert this authority to implement the DB project delivery

system to Ministry of Public Works. Therefore political and economic do not

significantly influence to this factor. Adjusted or improved regulations on the project

characteristics underlie the choice of projects suitable for the DB project delivery

system. Through regulations on the tendering system/procedure and contractual

arrangements, the procurement process of the DB project and the type of contract can

be legalised. In developing the DB projects, the risk must be allocated properly.

Project risk allocation is necessary to regulate responsibility for risk that might occur

during the project implementation. Therefore, the regulations with regard to

implementation of the DB project delivery system need to be concerned prior to the

other factors.

After the regulations on the project characteristics, contractual arrangements,

tendering system/procedure and availability of project risk approach are adjusted and

improved, the regulations will need to be championed by the relevant agencies.

Support from agencies‟ upper-level management for implementing the DB project

delivery system is essential for gaining the acceptance of agency staff. In addition,

championing from upper-level management leads to socialisation and

communication with the external parties who are affected by the changes. When

choosing the DB project delivery system, communication should be maintained with

all the parties and stakeholders involved.

Training for the owner‟s staff and other parties can be held after acceptance of

the unfamiliar system by the upper-level management of the owner. If the upper-

level management of the owner have accepted and supported the DB project delivery

system and if communication has been effectively conducted with the relevant

parties, training to educate the participants involved in the DB project delivery

system can be easily carried out.

Based on the ISM analysis results, training on the DB system contributes to

other factors and is positioned at the top level of the hierarchy. If the training has

been conducted, support and acceptance by other stakeholders including the industry

providers could be achieved. Training provides knowledge and understanding about


the DB project delivery system to the industry providers and other stakeholders. The

DB training enables staff to communicate and share knowledge regarding the DB

project delivery system. Strategies for staffing in the DB project delivery system can

also be obtained through the training. Thus, the training on the DB project delivery

system should be the initial stage in the DB pilot project.

6.5 SUMMARY

This chapter provides discussion of the results from the Delphi survey and pair-

wise comparison survey. Firstly the stakeholders‟ understandings of the DB project

delivery system were discussed. It includes the concepts and advantages of this

system. Secondly, the barriers that can hinder the potential implementation of the DB

project delivery system which are related to the regulations, capabilities of the

owner, capabilities of other stakeholders/participants, and adaptability were

discussed. Thirdly, the factors that can overcome the barriers and promote the

potential implementation of the DB project delivery system were discussed. These

factors were used to develop a hierarchy model for implementing the DB project

delivery system.

Furthermore, the levels of fourteen factors which form a hierarchy model for

implementing the DB project delivery system were discussed. There are six levels in

the developed model. „Legislative authority‟ is the foundation of all the factors and is

positioned at level VI. It is followed by „improved regulation on project

characteristics‟, „procurement procedure‟, „contractual arrangement‟ and „availability

of project risk approach‟ in level V. „Agency and management‟s support for

implementing the DB project delivery system‟ is placed at level IV before

„acceptance of change by agency staff‟ and „socialisation and communication with

external parties affected by DB system‟ at level III. „Training on newly introduced

approaches to agency staff and external parties‟ is at level II. The highest level, Level

I, consists of five factors, namely, „support and acceptance by other stakeholders‟,

„support and acceptance by industry providers‟, „availability of agency‟s staff for

implementing the DB system‟, „communication and knowledge sharing among staff

to facilitate the DB system‟ and „availability of pilot project‟.

Chapter 7: Conclusion 153

Chapter 7: Conclusion

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The DB project delivery system is a relatively new system in Indonesian road

infrastructure projects which are authorised by the Directorate General Bina Marga-

Ministry of Public Works. As a client, owner and agency, the Ministry of Public

Works needs to pay attention to successful implementation.

This chapter presents a summary of the findings on the implementation of the

DB project delivery system which includes stakeholders‟ understanding, barriers and

promoting factors in Section 7.2, followed by the research contribution in Section

7.3. The limitations of the study are discussed in Section 7.4, and the

recommendations for future research are made in Section 7.5.

7.2 POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DB PROJECT DELIVERY

SYSTEM: STAKEHOLDERS’ UNDERSTANDING, BARRIERS AND

PROMOTING FACTORS

To fulfil the research aim to investigate how the DB can be implemented, this section

reports on the overall findings from the thesis which are related to the factors in the

DB project delivery system model and captured in the research questions.

Prior to implementing the DB project delivery system which is relatively new

in Indonesian road infrastructure projects, an understanding of such a system among

the stakeholders involved in Indonesian road infrastructure is required. This includes

their understanding of the concept (definition of the DB project delivery system,

procurement, and characteristics of the DB projects) and advantages of the DB


The key stakeholders of road construction projects in Indonesia do have a good

understanding of the DB project delivery system. They understand the principal

154 Chapter 7: Conclusion

concept of the DB system, that is, the project is delivered by a single entity which is

responsible for both the design and construction. They also understand that the DB

project delivery system has several key characteristics that integrate design and

construction into one contract and in one procurement process, which is based on

lump-sum, fixed price basis that can be procured by limited tender, and the design

and construction are paid in a single financial transaction. Furthermore, they also

understand the key characteristics of the DB project delivery system, namely, that it

is used for complex projects, which need advanced technology and can affect the

surrounding environment; however, there is no standard for the value and size of the

projects that can be delivered using the DB project delivery system. The key project

stakeholders also acknowledged that the DB project delivery system is superior to

other project delivery systems, as it offers several benefits including shorter duration,

lower cost, better quality, encouragement of innovation and better management.

However, there are several barriers that can hinder the DB potential

implementation. Those barriers are related to regulation, client‟s capability, other

stakeholders‟ capability and adaptability. Barriers with regard to regulation consist of

the lack of detailed regulation on project characteristics, lack of detailed regulation

on the procurement process, lack of detailed regulation on the contractual

arrangement and lack of managing approach. Barriers regarding client‟s capability

include lack of experience, lack of skill, lack of knowledge, lack of effort to

implement the DB project delivery system, lack of understanding of staff, and lack of

adequate staff. Meanwhile, the barriers related to other stakeholder capabilities

include limited numbers of other experienced and skilled stakeholders in the DB

project delivery system, lack of DB experts, and lack of design capability.

To overcome the barriers and to promote the potential implementation of the

DB project delivery system, fourteen factors have been identified. These factors are

legislative authority for implementing the DB project delivery system, adjustment

regulation on project characteristics, adjustment of regulation on contractual

arrangements, adjustment of regulation on the procurement process, availability of

the project risk approach in managing project risk, availability of training on the DB

approach, availability of pilot projects, communication and knowledge sharing

among staff to facilitate the DB project delivery system, socialisation and


communication with external parties affected by the DB project delivery system,

training on the DB project delivery system, availability of adequate staff from the

client for implementing the DB project delivery system, acceptance of change by the

owner‟s staff, the vision of the agency‟s management and their support for adopting

or implementing the DB project delivery system, support and acceptance by the

relevant stakeholders and support or acceptance by industry providers and

availability of pilot projects.

The DB project delivery system could be accelerated and implemented by

considering the hierarchy of the factors promoting its potential implementation.

Legislative authority is the root of the hierarchy for implementing the DB project

delivery system. This would be the basis for adjusting the regulations on the project

characteristics, procurement procedures, contractual arrangements, and availability

of the risk management approach. The next factor is the championing of the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system by the agencies, clients and

owners. Accordingly, acceptance of change and communication with the external

parties affected by the implementation of the DB project delivery system can be

gained once the agency supports the DB project delivery system. Training on the DB

project delivery system then can be conducted with all the parties involved in the DB

project delivery system. With proper training, it is expected that support and

acceptance by other stakeholders and industry providers can be achieved, availability

of adequate agency staff can be gained, communication and knowledge sharing

among the participants involved in the DB project delivery system can be increased,

and pilot projects can be carried out to introduce the new system.

7.3 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION

This research has contributed to the knowledge and understandings of the potential

implementation of the DB project delivery system in road infrastructure projects. The

specific contributions can be grouped according to two different perspectives: the

contributions to academic knowledge, and to the infrastructure industry.


7.3.1 Contribution to Academic Knowledge

This research identified the factors promoting the DB project delivery system. These

factors are intended to encourage the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system, particularly for implementing such a system for the first time. The

stakeholders who are involved in the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery should consider these factors.

In addition, the model developed in this research proposed a structure of the

hierarchy of factors promoting the potential implementation of the DB project

delivery system. The model was developed to identify ways to implement the DB

project delivery system through levels of hierarchical factors. The model is

significant as it provides a framework regarding the priority of each step in the

process to implement the DB system and highlights the critical factors to which

factors should be paid attention.

7.3.2 Contribution to the Industry

This research has established a set of factors for implementing the DB project

delivery system in Indonesian road infrastructure projects. The model is a

crystallisation of this research and reflects the attempt to implement the DB project

delivery system.

The research found that there is a need for awareness and readiness among

infrastructure stakeholders in implementing the DB project delivery system. This

framework will help improve the understanding among various project stakeholders

and will provide them with awareness of practical considerations in advancing the

potential implementation of the DB project delivery system.


7.4 STUDY LIMITATIONS

Despite the contributions, the limitations of this research should be pointed out. This

research focuses on the procurement side rather than aspects of road design or

execution. Although the fundamental arguments on the concepts and challenges of

the implementation of the DB project delivery system remain consistent throughout

the course of this research, the findings and views presented in the model are more

reflective of the situation for developing countries than for developed countries since

the different countries deal with different characteristics in their respective

construction industries. In addition, it is more reflective of public road infrastructure

projects than other/ private types of projects. Undoubtedly, a wider coverage of other

types of projects would add and enrich the findings. However, this was not the focus

or ambit of this research. Nevertheless, this framework can serve as a guide for the

potential implementation of DB project delivery initiatives for other types of

projects.

7.5 RECCOMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The limitations of this research as discussed above present some opportunities for

future research. This research focuses only on the Indonesian road infrastructure

context. It will be worthwhile for future researchers to expand this study to cover

other regions of the world by considering different legal, cultural and political issues

that are specific to local conditions.

The enrichment of data is also important to improve the accuracy of the

prediction of the model. A major improvement would be the ability to automatically

calibrate the model using a local condition survey. This could be accomplished by

inviting more representatives of other stakeholder groups (such as Ministry of

Finance and Government procurement Policy Institution/LKPP as they are very

relevant in smoothing the execution of the DB project delivery system; contractors;

consultants; and local government) to provide relevant information.

Bibliography 159

Bibliography

AASHTO. 2008. Guide For Design-Build Procurement Washington: American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Abi-Karam, T. 2002. "Risk Management in Design/Build." In First International

Conference on Construction in the 21st Century: Challenges and

Opportunities in Management and Technology, Miami, Florida, USA, edited.

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway. 2006.

Design-Build Effectiveness Study.

Adnan, Hamimah, Azizan Supardi, Zul Zakiyuddin, Ahmad Rashid and Norazian

Mohamad Yusuwan. 2003. "Application of Delphi Expert Panel in Joint

Venture Projects in Malaysia Construction Industry, edited: Proceedings on

the 11th European Conference on Research Methods.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=25Ew9KKsbQIC&pg=PA438&lpg=P

A438&dq=Adnan+and+Morledge+2003+round+of+delphi&source=bl&ots=

WI7ELfYVj4&sig=1vhtuS6lNqGbW5XWREkmprkU_S4&hl=en&sa=X&ei

=rHitUJGtC43JmAXxmYHIBw&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage

&q=Adnan%20and%20Morledge%202003%20round%20of%20delphi&f=fal

se.

Ahuja, Vanita, Jay Yang and Ravi Shankar. 2009. "Benefits of Collaborative ICT

Adoption for Building Project Mnagement." Construction Innovation Vol. 9

No. 3.

Akinsola, A. O., K. F. Potts, I. Ndekugri and F. C. Harris. 1997. "Identification and

evaluation of factors influencing variations on building projects."

International Journal of Project Management 15 (4): 263-267.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786396000816. doi:

10.1016/s0263-7863(96)00081-6.

Akintoye, Akintola. 1994. "Design and build: a survey of construction

contractorsâ€™ views." Construction Management and Economics 12 (2):

155 - 163. Accessed February 26, 2010.

http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/01446199400000021.

Akintoye, Akintola and Eamon Fitzgerald. 1995. "Design and Build: A survey of

Architects'views." Journal Engineering, Construction and Architectural

Management.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/Insight/viewContent

Item.do;jsessionid=067B6161518835566B7C0B3D29E7D50B?contentType

=Article&contentId=1657267.

Akkermans, Henk A., Paul Bogerd, Enver Yücesan and Luk N. van Wassenhove.

2003. "The impact of ERP on supply chain management: Exploratory

findings from a European Delphi study." European Journal of Operational

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=25Ew9KKsbQIC&pg=PA438&lpg=PA438&dq=Adnan+and+Morledge+2003+round+of+delphi&source=bl&ots=WI7ELfYVj4&sig=1vhtuS6lNqGbW5XWREkmprkU_S4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rHitUJGtC43JmAXxmYHIBw&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Adnan%20and%20Morledge%202003%20round%20of%20delphi&f=false






http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786396000816

http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/01446199400000021

http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=067B6161518835566B7C0B3D29E7D50B?contentType=Article&contentId=1657267



160 Bibliography

Research 146 (2): 284-301.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCT-47G3XP2-

6/2/b666fc1246c46fc0f1e64b65e3f9150e.

Al-Reshaid, Khaled and Nabil Kartam. 2005. "Design-build pre-qualification and

tendering approach for public projects." International Journal of Project

Management 23 (4): 309-320.

Alawamhleh, M. J. A. 2010. "Collaboration Risk Evaluation and Management for

Small and Medium Size Enterprises in Virtual Organisations, Coventry

University.

Alawamleh, Mohammad and Keith Popplewell. 2011. "Interpretive Structural

Modelling of Risk Sources in A Virtual Organisation." International Journal

of Production Research Vol. 49, No 20.

Alexandrov, Andrei V., Patrick M. Pullicino, Eric M. Meslin, John W. Norris and for

the members of the Canadian Western New York Stroke Consortiums. 1996.

"Agreement on Disease-Specific Criteria for Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in

Acute Stroke." Stroke 27 (2): 232-237.

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/27/2/232.abstract. doi:

10.1161/01.str.27.2.232.

America, Design/Build Institute of. 1996. Design/Build Manual Practices.

Washington D C.

American Society of Civil Engineers. 1980." Paper presented at the Construction

Risk and Liability Sharing vol II, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Andresen, K and N Gronau. 2005. "An Approach to Increase Adaptability in ERP

Systems. In: Managing Modern Organizations with Information Technology

" In Proceedings of the 2005 Information Recources Management

Association International Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, edited.

Anumba, Chimay J. and Nosa F. O. Evbuoman. 1996. "Concurrent Engineering in

Design Build Projects." Journal of Construction Management and

Economics.

Anumba, Chimay J. and Nosa F. O. Evbuomwan. 1997. "Concurrent engineering in

design-build projects." Construction Management and Economics 15 (3): 271

- 281. Accessed February 26, 2010.


Arditi, David and Dong-Eun Lee. 2003. "Assessing the corporate service quality

performance of design-build contractors using quality function deployment."

Construction Management and Economics 21 (2): 175 - 185. Accessed May

27, 2010. http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/0144619032000079716.

Baccarini, David. 1996. "The Concept of Project Complexity - A Review."

International Journal of Project Management 14, No. 14.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCT-47G3XP2-6/2/b666fc1246c46fc0f1e64b65e3f9150e

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCT-47G3XP2-6/2/b666fc1246c46fc0f1e64b65e3f9150e

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/27/2/232.abstract



Bibliography 161

Badan Pemeriksaan Keuangan Republik Indonesia. 2009. "Kebijakan Pembangunan

Jalan di Indonesia Tahun 2005 - 2010". Jakarta.

Bappenas. 2002. Perumusan Strategi Pembangunan dan Pembiayaan Infrastruktur

Beskala Besar: Kebutuhan Pembangunan Infrastruktur. Jakarta.

Barrie, Donald S and Boyd C Paulson. 1992. Proffesional Construction Management

including C.M., Design-Construct, and General Contracting: Mc-Graw Hill.

Beard, J., M. C. Loukakis and E.C. Wundram. 2001. Design-Build: Planning

through Development: McGraw Hill, New York.

Bereiter, Carl. 2002. Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age: Routledge.

Bhargava, H K and D J Power. 2001. Decision Support Systems and Web

technologies: A Status report.: Americas Conference on Information System.

Chan, Albert P. C. 2000. "Evaluation of enhanced design and build system – a case

study of a hospital project." Construction Management and Economics 18

(7): 863 - 871. Accessed May 27, 2010.


Chan, Albert P. C., Daniel W. M. Chan, Y. H. Chiang, B. S. Tang, Edwin H. W.

Chan and Kathy S. K. Ho. 2004. "Exploring Critical Success Factors for

Partnering in Construction Projects." Journal of Construction Engineering

and Management 130 (2): 188-198. http://link.aip.org/link/?QCO/130/188/1.

Chan, Albert P. C., Danny C. K. Ho and C. M. Tam. 2001. "Design and Build Project

Success Factors: Multivariate Analysis." Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management 127 (2): 93-100.

Chappell, David. 2007. The JCT Design and Build Contract 2005. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

Charan, Parikshit, Rvi Shankar and Rajat K Baisya. 2008. "Analysis of Interaction

among the Variables of Supply Chain Performance Measurement System

Implementation." Bussiness Process Management Journal Vol.14 No. 4.

Cheng, Min-Yuan and Ming-Hsiu Tsai. 2008. "Cross-organization process

integration in design-build team." Automation in Construction 17 (2): 151-

162. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V20-4MYF63S-

1/2/cd1287d0f2f6d71f0519fbdfcd5d4d3b.

Clayton, Mark J. 1997. "Delphi : A Technique to Harness Expert Opinion for Critical

Decision -Making Tasks in Education." Educational Psychologi Vol. 17, No.

4.


http://link.aip.org/link/?QCO/130/188/1

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V20-4MYF63S-1/2/cd1287d0f2f6d71f0519fbdfcd5d4d3b

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V20-4MYF63S-1/2/cd1287d0f2f6d71f0519fbdfcd5d4d3b

162 Bibliography

Construction Industry Institute. 1986. Impact of Various Construction Contract

Types and Clauses on Project Performance 6. https://www.construction-

institute.org/scriptcontent/more/5_1_more.cfm.

Construction Industry Institute. 1997. Study: Design-Build Offers Key Advantages.

Cook, R H and J J Smith. 1984. Turnkey Procurement Consideration: Naval

Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Va.

Dardak, Hermanto. 2005. Upaya Pemerintah Memenuhi Kebutuhan Infrastruktur

Jalan.

Deakin, P. 1999. "Client's Local Experience on Design and Build Projects." In

Seminar Proceedings on Design and Build Procurement System, Hong Kong,

edited.

del Puerto, Carla Lopez, Douglas D. Gransberg and Jennifer S. Shane. 2008.

"Comparative Analysis of Owner Goals for Design/Build Projects." Journal

of Management in Engineering 24 (1): 32-39.

http://link.aip.org/link/?QME/24/32/1.

Department of Public Works. 2007. Kajian Pengembangan Kontrak berdasarkan

Kinerja pada Industri Jasa Konstruksi. Jakarta.

Department of Public Works. 2009. "Bina Marga Akan terapkan Kontrak Design &

Build Proyek Jalan dan Jembatan." Accessed 22 October 2009.

http://www.pu.go.id/index.asp?site_id=001&news=ppw221009gts.htm&ndat

e=10/22/2009%203:27:35%20PM.

Dillman, Don A. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys The Tailored Design Method. New

Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

El-Gohany, N M, H Osman and T E El-Diraby. 2006. "Stakeholder Management for

Public Private Partenrship." International Journal of Project Management.

Esquire, Cordell M. Parvin. 2011. Design-Build Transportation Contracts. Dalas,

Texas.

Fahmy, S and G. F.Jergeas. 2004. Design Build Delivery System on Trial: AACE

International Transaction - 48th AACE International Annual Meeting, 11-1.

Federal Construction Council. 1993. Experiencies of Federal Agencies with The

Design Build Approach to Construction: Tech. Rep. 122, Consulting Com.

On ,Cost Accounting, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

http://www.nap.edu.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/openbook.php?record_id=9809.

Federal Highway Administration. 1999. Innovative Contracting Pratices: Special

Experimental Projects, no 14: 6-18.

http://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/more/5_1_more.cfm

http://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/more/5_1_more.cfm

http://link.aip.org/link/?QME/24/32/1

http://www.pu.go.id/index.asp?site_id=001&news=ppw221009gts.htm&ndate=10/22/2009%203:27:35%20PM

http://www.pu.go.id/index.asp?site_id=001&news=ppw221009gts.htm&ndate=10/22/2009%203:27:35%20PM

http://www.nap.edu.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/openbook.php?record_id=9809

Bibliography 163

Fellows, Richard and Anita Liu. 2008. Research Methods for Construction:

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

FHWA, USDOT. 2006. Design and Effectiveness Study.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/designbuild/designbuild2.htm.

Flora, Gwen, James J. Ernzen and Cliff Schexnayder. 1998. "Field-Level

Management's Perspective of Design/Build." Practice Periodical on

Structural Design and Construction 3 (4): 180-185.

http://link.aip.org/link/?QSC/3/180/1.

Friedlander, Mark C. 1998. "FEATURE: Design/Build Solutions." Journal of

Management in Engineering 14 (6): 59-64.


Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission. 2003. Project Delivery

Options.

Gibson, G Edward, James T O'Connor, Giovanni Migliaccio and John Walewski.

2007. Key Implementation Issues and Lessons Learned with Design-Build

Projects.

Gidado, K I. 2010. "Project Complexity: The Focal Point of Construction Production

Planning." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 14.

http://www.tandfonline.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/01446

1996373476.

Gil, N, I D Tommelein, R L Kirkendall and G Ballar. 2001. "Leveraging Speciality-

Contractor Knowledge in Design Build Organisation." Engineering ,

Construction and Architectural Management.

Goodman, C. M. 1987. "The Delphi technique: a critique." Journal of Advanced

Nursing 12 (6): 729-734.

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.

aspx?direct=true&db=c8h&AN=1988075461&site=ehost-live. doi:

10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01376.x.

Government of Indonesia. 1999. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 18 Tahun

1999 Tentang Jasa Konstruksi

Government of Indonesia. 2000. Perarturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia No. 29

Tahun 2000 Tentang Penyelenggaraan Jasa Konstruksi

Government of Indonesia. 2003. Keputusan Presiden Republik Indonesia No. 80

Tahun 2003 Tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa

Pemerintah republik Indonesia

http://www.itjen.depkes.go.id/public/upload/unit/pusat/files/Keputusan%20Pr

esiden/Keppres_80_2003_PedomanPengadaanBarangjasa.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/designbuild/designbuild2.htm

http://link.aip.org/link/?QSC/3/180/1




http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=c8h&AN=1988075461&site=ehost-live

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=c8h&AN=1988075461&site=ehost-live

http://www.itjen.depkes.go.id/public/upload/unit/pusat/files/Keputusan%20Presiden/Keppres_80_2003_PedomanPengadaanBarangjasa.pdf

http://www.itjen.depkes.go.id/public/upload/unit/pusat/files/Keputusan%20Presiden/Keppres_80_2003_PedomanPengadaanBarangjasa.pdf

164 Bibliography

Gransberg, Douglas D and Keith R Molenaar. 2007. "The Impact of Design Build on

Public Workforce USC Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastruture

Policy." Paper presented at.

Gransberg, Douglas D. 2003. "Design/Build in Transportation from the Research

Perspective." Leadership and Management in Engineering 3 (3): 133-136.

Gransberg, Douglas D., John E. Koch and Keith R. Molenaar. 2006. Preparing for

Design-Build Projects A Primer for Owners, Engineers, and Contractors.

Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Gransberg, Douglas D. and Sanjaya P. Senadheera. 1999. "Design-Build Contract

Award Methods for Transportation Projects." Journal of Transportation

Engineering 125 (6): 565-567. http://link.aip.org/link/?QTE/125/565/1. doi:

10.1061/(asce)0733-947x(1999)125:6(565).

Grisham, Thomas. 2009. "The Delphi Technique: A Method for Testing Complex

and Multifaceted Topics." Journal of Managing Projects in Business Vol. 2

No. 1.

Grobbelaar, Sara Susan. 2007. "R&D in the National System of Innovation: A

System Dynamic Model, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Grzybowska, Katarzyna. 2012. "Sustainability in the Supply Chain: Analysing the

Enablers." Environmental Issues in Supply Chain Management Berlin

Heidelberg.

Gury, W W and R J Smith. 1995. "Allocation of Risk in Design/Build Projects - the

EJCDC approach." In Proceeding of the 1995 Construction Congress, 355-

362, edited.

Hale, Darren R., Pramen P. Shrestha, Jr G. Edward Gibson and Giovanni C.

Migliaccio. 2009. "Empirical Comparison of Design/Build and

Design/Bid/Build Project Delivery Methods." Journal of Construction


http://link.aip.org/link/?QCO/135/579/1.

Hallowell, Matthew R. and John A. Gambatese. 2010. "Qualitative Research:

Application of the Delphi Method to CEM Research." Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management 136 (1): 99-107.


Hanna, Awad S, PI, John C. Lynch and Mounir El Asmar. 2008. Effective

Implementation of The Design Build on Transportation Projects. Translated

by. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center.

Hanscomb. 2004. Design-build Becoming a Revolution.

http://link.aip.org/link/?QTE/125/565/1



Bibliography 165

Hemlin, D. 1999. "Contractor's Local Experienceon Design/Build Projects." In

Seminar Proceedings on Design and Build Procurement System, Hong Kong,

edited.

Hensley, Matthew L. and Edward P. White. 1993. "The privatization experience in

Malaysia: Integrating build-operate-own and build-operate-transfer

techniques within the national privatization strategy." The Columbia Journal

of World Business 28 (1): 70-82.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002254289390055T. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-5428(93)90055-T.

Hidayatika, Meiningtyas Dwi. 2007. "Peranan Infrastruktur Bagi Pertumbuhan

Ekonomi Daerah di Pulau Jawa." Bachelor, Economics Department,

University of Indonesia.

Hidenori, K. 1995. "Trust, Integration, and Leadership: Tenets of Japanese Design

and Build. Design and Build Projects." In International Experiences,

International Congress on Construction, Singapore, edited.

Ho, D C K. 1995. Design and Build: A Developing Procurement Option in Hong

Kong: The University of Hong Kong.

Ho, D C K, K W Chau and H F Leung. 1996. "Are Contractors Prepared to Take on

Design Build Contr." In Proceedings of CIB W92 Procurement Systems

North Meets South Africa: Developing Ideas, South Africa, edited.

Howell, Philip and Hardcastle Cliff. 1995. Integrating and Managing Project Team.

Hudson, W. Ronald, Ralph C. G. Haas and Waheed Uddin. 1997. Infrstructure

Management: integrating design, construction, maintenace, rehabilitation,

and renovation: Mc Graw Hill.

Iansiti, M. 1995. Shooting the Rapids: Managing Product Development in Turbulent

Environment: California Mgmt Review, 38 91), Fall, 37-58.

Ibbs, C. William, Young Hoon Kwak, Tzeyu Ng and A. Murat Odabasi. 2003.

"Project Delivery Systems and Project Change: Quantitative Analysis."

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 129 (4): 382-387.

http://link.aip.org/link/?QCO/129/382/1. doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-

9364(2003)129:4(382).

Janes, F R. 1988. "Interpretive structural modelling: a methodology for structuring

complex issue". In Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

Sage.

Janssens, D. E. L. 1991. Design-build explained, . London: Macmillan.

Jergeas, G and Fahmy S. 2006. "Ten Critical Principles for Succesful Design Build

Projects." Cost Engineering 48 (11): 29-34.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002254289390055T

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-5428(93)90055-T


166 Bibliography

Kamara, J M, C J Anumba and F O Evbuowman. 2000. "Establishing and Processing

Client Requirement - a Key aspect of Concurrent Engineering in

Construction." Engineering , Construction and Architectural Management.

Kartam, N, T Al-Daihani and J Al-Bahar. 2000. "Proffesional Construction

Management Practices in Kuwait." International Journal of Project

Management.

Kennedy, Holly Powell. 2004. "Enhancing Delphi research: methods and results."

Journal of Advanced Nursing 45 (5): 504-511.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02933.x. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-

2648.2003.02933.x.

KIMPRASWIL. 2001. Penyusunan Informasi Pembangunan Prasarana dan Sarana

KIMPRASWIL. Jakarta Indonesia.

King, W 2006. "Knowledge Sharing.". In In D. G. Schwartz The Encyclopedia of

Knowledge Management (pp.493-498) Harshey,P S: Idea Group Publishing.

Kingsley, David K. and Thomas C. Brown. 2010. "Preference Uncertainty,

Preference Learning, and Paired Comparison Experiments." Land Economics

86 (3): 530-544.

Konchar, Mark and Victor Sanvido. 1998. "Comparison of U.S. Project Delivery

Systems." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 124 (6):

435-444. http://link.aip.org/link/?QCO/124/435/1.

Konrath, R. 1990. Evidence for Defence Building October 12.

Lam, Edmond W. M., Albert P. C. Chan and Daniel W. M. Chan. 2004.

"Benchmarking design-build procurement systems in construction."

Benchmarking 11 (3): 287-302.

Lam, Edmond W. M., Albert P. C. Chan and Daniel W. M. Chan. 2008.

"Determinants of Successful Design-Build Projects." Journal of Construction


http://link.aip.org/link/?QCO/134/333/1. doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-

9364(2008)134:5(333).

Lang, Trudi. 1994. "An Overview of Four Future Methodologies : Delphi,

Environmental Scanning, Issues Management and Emerging Issue Analysis".

Lee, Hyun Soo. 2006. The Prerequisite for Developing Turn-Key System. Seoul

Korea: Construction and Research Institute of Korea.

Leming, Michael R. 1997. "Research Sampling Designs: Techniques for Evaluating

Hypotheses".

Levy, Sidney M. 2006. Design-Build Project Delivey: McGraw-Hill.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02933.x



Bibliography 167

Levy, Sidney M. 2007. Construction Process Planning and Management Elsevier

Inc.

Lim, Soon Kam. 2009. "Framework and Processes for Enhancing Sustainability

Deliverables in Australian Road Infrastructure Projects, Queensland

University of Technology.

Ling, Florence Yean Yng and Canny Lee Kian Chong. 2005. "Design-and-build

contractors' service quality in public projects in Singapore." Building and

Environment 40 (6): 815-823.

Ling, Florence Yean Yng and Benjamin Huat Meng Poh. 2008. "Problems

encountered by owners of design-build projects in Singapore." International

Journal of Project Management 26 (2): 164-173.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9V-4NRMDBG-

1/2/b1aa2a12d79af36309da3c375b53484a.

Linstone, Harold A and Murray Turoff. 2002. The Delphi Mehod : Technique and

Applications: Addison - Wesley.

Malone, David W. 1975. "An Introduction to the Application of Interpretive

Structural Modeling." In IEEE, edited.

Mandal, A and S. G Deshmukh. 1994. "Vendor Selection Using Interpretive

Structural Modeling (ISM)." International Jounal of Operations &

Production Management 14, (6) 52-61.

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/232352421.

Martino, J. 1973. Method of Technological Forecasting, Assessing the Future and

Policy Planning Gordon and Breach Science, New York.

Masini, Eleonora. 1993. Why Future Studies? : Grey Seal, London.

Masterman, J . W. E. 2002. An Introduction to Building Procurement Systems. New

York: Spoon Press.

McManus, J. 2004. Managing Stakeholders in Software Development Projects:

Burlington Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Mead, Donna and Laurence Mosley. 2001. "The Use of Delphi as Research

Approach." Nurse Researcher Volume 8 number 4.

Migliaccio, G. C., G. E. Gibson and J. T. O'Connor. 2009. "Procurement of Design-

Build Services: Two-Phase Selection for Highway Projects." Journal of

Management in Engineering 25 (1): 29-39.


Migliaccio, Giovanni C, G Edward Gibson JR and James T O'Connor. 2008.

"Changing Project Delivery Strategy An Implementation Framework." Public

Works Management & Policy.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9V-4NRMDBG-1/2/b1aa2a12d79af36309da3c375b53484a

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9V-4NRMDBG-1/2/b1aa2a12d79af36309da3c375b53484a

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/232352421


168 Bibliography

Migliacio, Giovanni Ciro. 2007. "Planning for Strategy Change in The Project

Delivery Strategy." Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin.

Ming, Lam Wai. 2005. "Conceptual Model of Success for Design Build Project in

The Public Sector of Hong Kong, Department of Building on Real Estate,

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Ministry of Public Works. 2008. Kajian Pengaturan Penyelenggaraan Design Build

Dalam Rangka Investasi Investasi Infrastruktur. Jakarta.

Ministry of Public Works. 2010. Kondisi Infrastruktur di Indonesia. Jakarta

Indonesia.

Molenaar, Keith R. and Douglas D. Gransberg. 2001. "Design-Builder Selection for

Small Highway Projects." Journal of Management in Engineering 17 (4):

214-223. http://link.aip.org/link/?QME/17/214/1.

Molenaar, Keith R. and Anthony D. Songer. 1998. "Model for Public Sector Design-

Build Project Selection." Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management 124 (6): 467-479. http://link.aip.org/link/?QCO/124/467/1.

Molenaar, Keith R., Anthony D. Songer and Mouji Barash. 1999. "Public-Sector

Design/Build Evolution and Performance." Journal of Management in

Engineering 15 (2): 54-62.

Moore, D R and A R J Dainty. 2001. "Intra Team Boundaries as Inhibitors of

Performance Improvement in UK Design and Build Projects: A Call for

Change." Construction Management and Economics.

Munns, A. K. and B. F. Bjeirmi. 1996. "The role of project management in achieving

project success." International Journal of Project Management 14 (2): 81-87.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00057-7.

Munteanu, Valentin, Diana Glogor and Gabriel Bizoi. 2007. "Project Management

and Stakeholder Analysis. An Ethical Approach for Infrastructure

Development Project." Review of International Comparative Management

Vol. 8 No 4.

Myers , J J. 1994. Rep. on Design-Build as an alternative Delivery Method for Public

Owners: Com. on Mgmt. and Contracting Alternatives, Building Futures

Council, Georgetown, Md.

National Society of Professional Engineers. 1995. "Design/Build in the Public

Sector.

Ndekugri, Issaka and Adrian Turner. 1994. "Building Procurement by Design and

Build Approach." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 120

(2): 243-256.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00057-7

Bibliography 169

Neutze, M. 1997. Funding Urban Services - Option for Physical Infrastructure:

Allen & Unwin Publisher, NSW, Australia.

Newcombe, R. 2003. "From Client to Project Stakeholders: A Stakeholder Mapping

Approach." Construction Management and Economic.

Nima, M., M. Abdul-Kadir, M. Jaafar and R. Alghulami. 2002. "Constructability

Concepts in West Port Highway in Malaysia." Journal of Construction


http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-

9364%282002%29128%3A4%28348%29. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-

9364(2002)128:4(348).

O'Leary, Zina. 2004. The Essential Guide to Doing Reserach. London: Sage.

Okpala, D. C. 1991. "Evaluation and selection of construction projects in Nigeria."

Construction Management & Economics 9 (1): 51.

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.

aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=5422773&site=ehost-live.

Oregon Department of Transportation. 2002. Oregon Public Contracting Coalition

Design Build White Paper.

Pakkala, Pekka. 2002. Innovative Project Delivery Methods for Infrastructure: An

International Perspective: Finish Road Enterprise.

Palaneeswaran, Ekambaram and Mohan M. Kumaraswamy. 2000. "Contractor

Selection for Design/Build Projects." Journal of Construction Engineering

and Management 126 (5): 331-339. http://link.aip.org/link/?QCO/126/331/1.

Park, C K. 2006. "Characteristic of Construction Environment in Korea: the Paper of

4th Discussion". Seoul: Forum of research for developing Government

Construction Regulation.

Park, Moonseo, Sae-Hyun Ji, Hyun-Soo Lee and Wooyoung Kim. 2009. "Strategies

for Design-Build in Korea Using System Dynamics Modeling." Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management 135 (11): 1125-1137.

Pearson, M and D Skues. 1999. "Control of Projects Implemented through Design

and Build Contracts." In Seminar proceeding on Design Build Procurement

System, January 1999, Hongkong, edited.

Pietroforte, Roberto and John B. Miller. 2002. "Procurement methods for US

infrastructure: historical perspectives and recent trends." Building Research

& Information 30 (6): 425 - 434. Accessed February 26, 2010.


Project Management Institute. 2008. A guide to Project Management Body of

Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (Fourth ed.): Newton Square: Project

Management Institute, Inc.

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9364%282002%29128%3A4%28348%29


http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=5422773&site=ehost-live

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=5422773&site=ehost-live



170 Bibliography

Queiroz, Caesar and Surhid Gautaman. 1992. Road Infrastructure and Economic

Development: Some Diagnostic Indicators. Washington D.C: Policy Research

Dissemination Center.

Rahadian, Hedy. 2009. Langkah Awal Menuju Performanced Based Contract

Melalui Extended Warranty Period. www.hpji.or.id/majalah/mjt_0401.pdf.

Rainer, Gob, Christopher Mc Collin and Maria Fernanda Ramalhoto. 2007. "Ordinal

Methodology in The Analysis of Likert Scales." Quality and Quantity.

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/784304944. doi:

DOI 10.1007/s11135-007-9089-z.

Raskin, Miriam S. 1994. "The Delphi Study in Field Instruction Revisied: Expert

Consensus on Issue and Research Priorities." Journal of Social Work

Education Vol. 30, No. 1.

Ravi, V. and Ravi Shankar. 2005. "Analysis of interactions among the barriers of

reverse logistics." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72 (8):

1011-1029. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2004.07.002.

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 2007. Innovation In Transportation Project Delivery

Methods. Burlington, Vermont.

Rogers, Margaret R. and Emilia C. Lopez. 2002. "Identifying Critical Cross-Cultural

School Psychology Competencies." Journal of School Psychology 40 (2):

115-141. Accessed 2002/4//.


10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00093-6.

Rowe, Gene and George Wright. 1999. "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool:

issues and analysis." International Journal of Forecasting 15 (4): 353-375.


10.1016/s0169-2070(99)00018-7.

Rowlinson, S. 1987. Design Build - Its Development and Present Status: Ascot:

CIOB.

Roy, Sumanta Kumar and Enno Ed Koehn. 2006. "Construction Labor Requirements

in Developing Countries." In 2006 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference

Southern University and A & M College-Baton Rouge, edited.

Rye, J B. 2006. Interpellation of Parliamentary Inspection Report of Ministry of

Construction and Transportation. http://www.mofe.go.kr/public/ninfo1.php.

Sage, A. 1977. Interpretive Structural Modelling: Methodology for Large Scale

Systems. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Saxena, J. P., Sushil and Vrat. 1990. "Impact of Indirect Realtionships in

Classification of Variables." System Reseach, 7, (4) 245-250.

http://www.hpji.or.id/majalah/mjt_0401.pdf

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/784304944



http://www.mofe.go.kr/public/ninfo1.php

Bibliography 171

Science Application International Corporation. 2003. Selecting Project Delivery

System. College, Pennsylvania: The Project Delivery Institute.

Seng, NG Weng and Amnah MD Yosuf. 2006. "The Success Factors of Design Build

Procurement Method: A Literature Visit." In 6th Asia Pasific Structural

Engineering and Construction Conference Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, edited.

Sharma, H. D, A. D Gupta and Sushil. 1995. "The Objectives of Waste Management

in India: A Futures Inquiry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 48,

285-309.

Shen, L., H. Li and Q. Li. 2002. "Alternative Concession Model for Build Operate

Transfer Contract Projects." Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management 128 (4): 326-330.

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-

9364%282002%29128%3A4%28326%29. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-

9364(2002)128:4(326).

Singh, M. D, Ravi Shankar, R Narain and A Agarwal. 2003. "An Interpretive

Structural Modeling of Knowledge Management in Engineering Industries."

Journal of Advanced in Management Reserach 1, (1) 28-40.

Smith, A and B Wilkins. 1996. "Team Relationships and Related Critical Factors and

Success Criteria for Design Build in the US and UK " Journal of

Construction Procurement 2 (2) 69-82.

Soemardi, Biemo and Krishna S. Pribadi. 2010. "The Role Of Central Local

Agencies in Indonesia's Road Project Delivery System." Paper presented at

the 5th Civil Engineering Conference in the Asian Region and Australian

Structural Engineering Conference.

Soemardi, Biemo W and Reini D Wirahadikusumah. 2009. "Kebutuhan Dan

Tantangan Pendidikan Infrastruktur

Songer, Anthony D. and Keith R. Molenaar. 1997. "Project Characteristics for

Successful Public-Sector Design-Build." Journal of Construction



Stagner, Steve and Cyntia Thomas. 2004. Design Build and Alternative Project

Delivery in Texas.

http://www.cectexas.org/research_&_policy_issues/pdfs/Design%20Build%2

0Overview%20Paper%200404.pdf.

Swan, R. 1987. "Design and Build Contract." Contract Journal July (30): 12 - 13.




http://www.cectexas.org/research_&_policy_issues/pdfs/Design%20Build%20Overview%20Paper%200404.pdf

http://www.cectexas.org/research_&_policy_issues/pdfs/Design%20Build%20Overview%20Paper%200404.pdf

172 Bibliography

Tam, C M and F A Harris. 1996. "A Model for Assessing Building Contractor's

Project Performance." Journal of Engineering Construction and Architectural

Management 3 (3): 187-203. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb021030.

Tam, C. M. 2000. "Design and Build on a complicated redevelopment project in

Hong Kong: The Happy Valley Racecourse Redevelopment." International

Journal of Project Management 18 (2): 125-129.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9V-3YSXD28-

6/2/f0d9575a3371fcf9e17750e01665a877.

Team, Design/ Build Research. 1997. Project Delivery System: CM at Risk,

Design/Build, Design-Bid-Build. Austin: University of Texas.

Tenah, Kwaku A. 2000. The Design -Build Approach: An Overview

Vol. 42/No3, Journal of Cost Engineering

Trigunarsyah, Bambang. 2001. "PhD Thesis: Implementing Constructability into the

Indonesian Construction Industry." PhD, University of Melbourne.

Trigunarsyah, Bambang and Martin Skitmore. 2010. "The Key to Successful

Implementation: Project Management of Sustainable Infrastructure Provision.

Brisbane.

Turner, D F. 1995. Design and Build Contract Practice: Harlow: Longman.

USDOT Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Report to Congress on Public

Private Partnerships, .

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pppdec2004/.

USDOT Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Design Build Effectiveness Study.

Waller, R. J. 1983. Knowledge for Producing Useful Knowledge. In Producing

Useful Knowledge for Organisation. Vols 1 and 2 ed by Kilman, R. H. e. a.

New York, USA: Praeger.

Warfield, J. 2005. "Developing Interconnection Matrices in Structural Modeling."

Paper presented at the IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

Warfield, John N. 1990. A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity

Through System Design: CA, Salinas.

WYDOT. 2002. Design Build An Overview for State Departements of

Transportation.

Xia, B., A. Chan and J. Yeung. 2011. "Developing a Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-

Making Model for Selecting Design-Build Operational Variations." Journal

of Construction Engineering and Management 137 (12): 1176-1184.

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-

7862.0000381. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000381.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb021030

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9V-3YSXD28-6/2/f0d9575a3371fcf9e17750e01665a877

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9V-3YSXD28-6/2/f0d9575a3371fcf9e17750e01665a877

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pppdec2004/

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0000381

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0000381

Bibliography 173

Yates, J. K. 1995. "Use of Design/Build in E/C Industry." Journal of Management in

Engineering 11 (6): 33-38.

Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research Design and Methods: Sage Publications

Inc.

Yousuf, Muhammad Imran. 2007. "The Delphi Technique": University of Arid

Agriculture, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Yuwono, Bambang E. 2007. "Prasyarat Keberhasilan proyek Rancang Bangun." In

Temu Ilmiah Nasional Dosen Teknik 2007-FT Untar, Indonesia, edited.

APPENDIX A – Invitation Letter 174

APPENDIX A – Invitation Letter

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am PhD candidate from Queensland University of Technology Australia, Faculty of Built

Environment and Engineering, School of Urban Development, specializing in Project

Management. I am currently conducting a research study entitled “Implementing Design

Build Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure in Indonesia”. This project is funded

by the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) of Indonesia, on behalf of The

Ministry of National Education of The Republic of Indonesia.

The method that I will use for the data collection is the Delphi Questionnaire Survey. This

aims to get consensus amongst the experts. The experts to be selected for this study will be

the leaders in echelon II and III from the institution who are involved in project delivery

system in Indonesia and the academician who has criteria as follows:

- Has more specific specialization in project delivery system, procurement and

contracting

- Has PhD degree in construction/project management

- Has minimum five year experience in teaching at university

To this end, I would like to invite you – as an expert in project delivery system in road

infrastructure projects - to participate in approximately a three round of Delphi

Questionnaires. I have attached a participant information sheet to this email. This provides

further information on the project and what your participation would involve, should you

agree to participate.

I would very much appreciate your participation in this research project. The sharing of your

knowledge and experience as you answer the questionnaires will be valuable to me and as

such will be treated with the strictest confidence. No reference will be made to specific

individuals in the thesis.

If you agree to participate, please let me know by return email and I will contact you for the

next step.

If you have any queries about this project please do not hesitate to contact me by email

[email protected].

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Yours sincerely

Anak Agung Diah Parami Dewi

Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering School of Urban development

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.qut.edu.au/

APPENDIX A – Invitation Letter 176

APPENDIX B – Participant Information for QUT Research Project and Consent Form 177

APPENDIX B – Participant Information for QUT

Research Project and Consent Form

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Interview

Implementing a Design Build project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1100000693

Research Team

Principal

Researcher: Anak Parami Dewi, PhD student, Faculty of BEE, QUT

Associate

Researchers:

A/Prof Bambang Trigunarsyah (Principal supervisor)

Dr Eric Too (Associate Supervisor)

Description

This project is being undertaken as part of PhD for Anak Agung Diah Parami Dewi.

This project is funded by the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) of

Indonesia, on behalf of The Ministry of National Education of The Republic of

Indonesia. The funding body will not have access to data that personally identifies

you obtained during the project.

The purpose of this project is to develop a framework to guide the implementation of

the Design Build project delivery system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

You are invited to participate in this research project as you are the member of the

organisation involved in the process of project selection in the regional level, and can

provide valuable data and information relevant to the topic of the research

Voluntary Participation

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you

can withdraw from the project at any time without comment or penalty. Any identifiable

information already obtained from you will be destroyed. Your decision to participate, or

not participate, will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT

or with any associated external organisations

Your participation will involve interview related to the findings that were obtained

from the previous stage (Delphi questionnaire survey). It will take approximately 30

minutes at an agreeable location to you. Audio recording will be used for interview.

Interviews will be conducted between October-December 2011.

Topics to be covered by interview questions will include: Discussion on Design Build

project delivery system understanding, factors that can influence Design Build


178 APPENDIX B – Participant Information for QUT Research Project and Consent Form

project success and criteria for the success of Design Build project delivery system in

road infrastructure projects.

Discussion on the proposed framework for implementing Design Build project

delivery system in road infrastructure.

Expected Benefits

It is expected that this project will not benefit you directly. However, it may be of

benefit for policy makers, scholars and other road infrastructure practitioners in

Indonesia, by developing a framework to guide the implementation of Design Build

project delivery system in road infrastructure projects. It may also provide a useful

point for implementing Design Build project delivery system in other developing

countries.

Risks

There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in

this project.

Privacy and Confidentiality

All comments and responses will be treated confidentially. The names of individual

persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this project

will be stored securely as per QUT‟s Management of research data policy.

Any information obtained in connection with this project that can identify you will

remain confidential. It will only be disclosed with your permission, subject to legal

requirements. We plan to publically present and publish the results of this research,

however information will only be provided in a form that does not identify you.

The project involves audio recordings. The audio recording will be destroyed at the

end of the project and will not be used for any other purpose. Only research team can

have access to the audio recording.

Consent to Participate

Once you understand what the project is about, and if you agree to participate, we ask

that you sign the Consent Form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate.

Questions / further information about the project

If have any questions or require any further information about the project please contact

one of the research team members below.

Anak Parami Dewi – Researcher A/Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah – Supervisor

S cho o l o f U rb an Dev e lo pm en t – Facu l t y Bu i l t En v i r onm en t and

E n g in ee r i n g ( BE E )

Phone : (+61)-425 001 707

Phone : +61 7 3138 8303

Email :

[email protected]

Email :

[email protected]




Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project

QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects.

However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the

project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on +61 73138 5123 or email

[email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the

research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your

information.



CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT



RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS

Anak Parami Dewi – Researcher A/Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah – Supervisor

School of Urban Development – Faculty Built Environment and

Engineering (BEE)

Phone : (+61)-425 001 707

Phone : +61 7 3138 8303

Email :

[email protected]

Email :

[email protected]

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

have read and understood the information document regarding this project

have had any questions answered to your satisfaction

understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team

understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty

understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Unit on +61 7 3138 5123 or email

[email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project

agree to participate in the project

understand that the project will include audio recording

Name

Signature

Date

Please return this sheet to the investigator.






PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

A Questionnaire Survey



RESEARCH TEAM

Principal Researcher: Anak Agung Diah Parami Dewi, PhD student, Faculty of BEE, QUT

Associate

Researchers:

A/Prof Bambang Trigunarsyah (Principal supervisor)

Dr Eric Too (Associate Supervisor)

DESCRIPTION

This project is being undertaken as part of PhD for Anak Agung Diah Parami Dewi.

This project is funded by the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) of

Indonesia, on behalf of The Ministry of National Education of The Republic of

Indonesia. The funding body will not have access to data that personally identifies

you obtained during the project.

The purpose of this project is to develop a framework to guide the implementation of

the Design Build project delivery system in road infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

You are invited to participate in this research project as you are the top level

management of the institution involved in the project delivery system for

infrastructure projects, and can provide valuable data and information relevant to the

topic of the research. You may be invited for the next stage (interview) for validating

the findings from this stage.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you

can withdraw from the project at any time without comment or penalty. Any identifiable

information already obtained from you will be destroyed. Your decision to participate, or

not participate, will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT

or with any associated external organisations

Your participation will involve a questionnaire survey that will take approximately

20 minutes of your time. Topics to be covered by the questionnaire. Questions will

include:

Understanding on Design Build project delivery system, that covers:

the concept of the Design Build project delivery system;

the benefit of the Design Build project delivery system

the barrier to implementing Design Build project delivery system

Factors that can influence Design Build project success and criteria for the success of

the Design Build project delivery system

In Delphi questionnaire survey, it is expected to consist of approximately three

rounds. Once all of the first round questionnaires has been gathered and analysed, the



second round questionnaires will be distribute to participants. The same process will

be applied to third round.

EXPECTED BENEFITS

It is expected that this project will not benefit you directly. However, it may be of

benefit for policy makers, scholars and other road infrastructure practitioners in

Indonesia, by developing a framework to guide the implementation of Design Build

project delivery system in road infrastructure projects. It may also provide a useful

point for implementing Design Build project delivery system in other developing

countries.

RISKS

There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in

this project.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

All comments and responses will be treated confidentially. The names of individual

persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this project

will be stored securely as per QUT‟s Management of research data policy.

Any information obtained in connection with this project that can identify you will

remain confidential. It will only be disclosed with your permission, subject to legal

requirements. We plan to publically present and publish the results of this research

however information will only be provided in a form that does not identify you.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

The return of your completed questionnaire is accepted as an indication of your consent

to participate in this project.

QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT

If have any questions or require any further information about the project please contact

one of the research team members below.

Anak Agung Diah Parami Dewi –

Researcher A/ Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah – Supervisor

S c h o o l o f Ur b a n De ve l o p me n t – F a c u l t y B u i l t E n v i r o n me n t a n d

E n g i n e e r i n g ( BE E )

Phone : (+61)-425 001 707 Phone : +61 7 3138 8303

Email :

[email protected]

Email :

bambang [email protected]

CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT

QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects.

However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the

project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on +61 73138 5123 or email

[email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the

research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your

information.


mailto:bambang%[email protected]



CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT



RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS Anak Agung Diah Parami Dewi –

Researcher A/Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah – Supervisor

S c h o o l o f Ur b a n De v e l o p me n t – F a c u l t y Bu i l t E n v i r o n me n t a n d

E n g i n e e r i n g ( BE E )

Phone : (+61)-425001707 Phone : +61 7 3138 8303

Email :

[email protected]

Email :

bambang [email protected]

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

have read and understood the information document regarding this project

have had any questions answered to your satisfaction

understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team

understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty

understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Unit on +61 7 3138 5123 or email

[email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project

agree to participate in the project

Name

Signature

Date

Please return this sheet to the investigator.


mailto:bambang%[email protected]



APPENDIX C – Delphi Survey Questionnaires 184

APPENDIX C – Delphi Survey Questionnaires

DELPHI SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Round 1

Dear Sir/ Madam

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this Delphi Study for my PhD research with

the title Implementing a Design Build Project Delivery System in Road

Infrastructure in Indonesia. This research focuses on how a Design Build (DB)

project delivery system can be successfully implemented in Indonesian road

infrastructure projects. Its overall aim is to develop a model to guide successful

implementation of Design Build project delivery system in Indonesian road

infrastructure projects. The proposed model utilises factors from the literature review

and suggestions from experts. The findings of this research could significantly

promote the implementation of the Design Build project delivery system in


The first round of this Delphi survey aims to seek expert opinions to identify the

stakeholders‟ understandings of DB project delivery system, barriers to

implementing the DB project delivery system and factors that can promote the

implementation of DB project delivery system. It will also elicit the measures of

successful implementation of DB project delivery system.

This survey should take no more than 20-30 minutes to complete. I would appreciate

it if you could complete the survey within the next two (2) weeks in order to facilitate

the next round of Delphi study. The second round of questions will be distributed 2

weeks after the return date of the first survey, and participants will again be allocated

2 weeks to complete the questionnaire.

Please be assured that your responses will be held in the strictest of confidence and

used only to gather data for university research. No individual will be identified at

any time during the study process. If you have any further questions concerning this

survey please do not hesitate to contact the researcher, Anak Agung Diah Parami

Dewi at +61425001707 or via email [email protected]. This

study adheres to the ethical procedures and requirements of Queensland University

of Technology (QUT). QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical

conduct of research projects.

Please answer as fully as possible. Your cooperation and participation in this

important survey is appreciated. Thank you again for taking the time to assist with

this research and see you in Round 2.



Section 1: General Information about the Respondent

1. Name:

2. Institution:

3. Position:

4. Type of organisation in which you are working:

Client Organisation

Engineering Consultant

Main Contractor

University

Other; please specify.....................................

5. Please indicate how many past DB project delivery systems you have been

involved in:

One DB project

Two DB projects

Three or more DB projects

Section 2: Design Build (Concept and Benefits)

2A. Concept of Design Build Project Delivery System

Based on the literature review and suggestions from experts there are a number of

statements with regard to the concept of the Design Build project delivery system.

Please indicate(by providing the relevant rating) the degree of your agreement with

the statements based on your personal expertise and experience, and by using the

following scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Slightly Disagree

4 = Slightly Agree

5 = Agree

6 = Strongly Agree

186 APPENDIX C – Delphi Survey Questionnaires

Based on your understanding, the

Design Build project delivery system is a

project delivery system in which.... Str

ongly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Sli

ghtl

y

Dis

agre

e S

lightl

y

Agre

e

Agre

e

Str

ongly

Agre

e

1 2 3 4 5 6

Definition of DB Project Delivery System

1 The client deals directly with the

constructor for the complete design and

construction

2 The constructor/design builder has a single

responsibility


entity/organisation

4 The constructor designs and constructs the

project

DB Procurement and Contract Characteristic

5 The contract is based on lump sum fixed

price

6 Design and construction are integrated into

one contract


procurement

8 Can be procured by limited tender

9 Includes engineering procurement and

construction

10 Design and construction are paid in a

single financial transaction basis.


11 Requires a lot of details about how it

should be executed

12 Needs advanced technology


environment

14 Used for high-risk projects which can

endanger public safety, human life and the

environment

15 Has varied tasks in project scope

16 Needs specialists in project scope

17 Used for projects which are valued over

USD 5,000,000

18 Requires efficient coordination, control and



Based on your understanding, the

Design Build project delivery system is a

project delivery system in which.... Str

ongly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Sli

ghtl

y

Dis

agre

e S

lightl

y

Agre

e

Agre

e

Str

ongly

Agre

e

1 2 3 4 5 6

19 Used for medium and small size projects

20 Revisions are usually encountered during



21 Used for projects that can results in hazards

22 Has a large number of different systems

that need to be put together and/ or with a

large number of interfaces between

elements

23 Has intricate work in the project

24 Involves construction work on a confined

site with access difficulty and requiring

many trades to work in close proximity at

the same time


labour at the project site

26 Other characteristic? Please state:

2B: Benefits of the Design Build Project Delivery System

This section aims to identify the benefits of implementing the DB project delivery

system.


statements with regard to the benefits of the Design Build project delivery system.

Please indicate(by providing the relevant rating) your degree of agreement with the

statements based on your personal expertise and experience, and by using the

following scale:


2 = Disagree


4 = Slightly Agree

5 = Agree

6 = Strongly Agree


The benefits of the Design Build project

delivery system include…

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly

Agre

e

Agre

e

Str

on

gly

Agre

e

1 2 3 4 5 6

Shorter Duration Compared to Other Project Delivery System (Design

Bid Build and Construction Management) which is due to

1 Simultaneous contracting of design and

construction

2

The key item of materials and components

determined early in the drawing-up of

specifications

3


knowledge (constructability) that the


4 Overlapping design and construction phase

Lower Cost Compared to Other Project Delivery System (Design Bid

Build and Construction Management) which is due to

5 Early project completion

6


knowledge (constructability) that the


7 Designer and contractor in the same team

8 Early cost certainty

Better Quality than Other Project Delivery Systems (Design Bid Build

and Construction Management) which is due to

9


knowledge (constructability)that the


10

The DB allows the use of best value

method to assess the qualification of


11 The DB allows the use of best value

method to assess quality of design

Allowing Innovation

12

The DB allows the contractors to use any

material as long as they can meet

performance quality criteria


The benefits of the Design Build project

delivery system include…

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly

Agre

e

Agre

e

Str

on

gly

Agre

e

1 2 3 4 5 6

13


equipment as long as their results meet the

quality criteria and client objective

14

The DB can promote innovation by

utilising the designers‟ and builders‟

separate strengths to develop new design

and construction techniques

15

The DB enables contractors to have

significant freedom and flexibility in

technique

16



transparency and open communication

among project team members

Better Management which is due to

17 Single responsibility can lead to minimum

conflict and disputes

18


streamlining the coordination between the

design and construction teams

19 Single responsibility can lead to lessening

the administrative burdens

20

Single responsibility can lead to arbitrating

between distinct design and construction

entities


complexities of multiple contracts


adversarial roles amongst parties

23 Other benefits? Please state:


Section 3: Barriers to the Implementation of the Design Build Project Delivery

System

This section aims to identify the barriers to implementing Design Build project

delivery system. Based on the literature review and suggestions from experts there

are a number of statements with regard to the barriers that can hinder the

implementation of the Design Build project delivery system. Please indicate(by

providing the relevant rating) the degree of your agreement with the statements based

on your personal expertise and experience, and by using the following scale:


2 = Disagree


4 = Slightly Agree

5 = Agree

6 = Strongly Agree

The barriers that can hinder the

implementation of Design Build

include…

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly

Agre

e

Agre

e

Str

on

gly

Agre

e

1 2 3 4 5 6

Regulation

1 Lack of regulation on contractual

arrangement

2 Lack of detailed regulation on tendering

system

3 Lack of risk management approach

4 Lack of detailed regulation on project

characteristics

Lack of Client Capabilities

5 Lack of knowledge

6 Lack of effort to implement DB 7 Lack of understanding of staff 8 Lack of adequate staff 9 Lack of skill

10 Lack of experience

Lack of Other Participant/Stakeholder Capabilities

11 A small number of experienced and

skilled other stakeholders in DB

12 Lack of design capability

13 Lack of DB experts


The barriers that can hinder the

implementation of Design Build

include…

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

agre

e

Sli

gh

tly

Agre

e

Agre

e

Str

on

gly

Agre

e

1 2 3 4 5 6

Adaptability

14 Clients prefer traditional method to DB

15 Lack of promotion of DB 16 Resistance to adopting a new system 17 Clients do not have confidence in

managing DB

18 Clients are constrained by traditional

DBB method

19 Clients are wary of new innovation and

systems

20 Lack of attention from clients

21 Clients are not aware of the benefits of

DB

22 Others, please state

Section 4: Factors that can Promote the Implementation of the Design Build

Project Delivery System

This section aims to identify the factors influencing the successful implementation of

the DB project delivery system.


statements with regard to the factors that can promote the implementation of the

Design Build project delivery system. Please indicate (by providing the relevant

rating) the degree of your agreement with the statements based on your personal

expertise and experience, and by using the following scale:


2 = Disagree


4 = Slightly Agree

5 = Agree

6 = Strongly Agree


No The factors that can promote DB

implementation include…

Str

ongly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Sli

ghtl

y

Dis

agre

e

Sli

ghtl

y

Agre

e

Agre

e

Str

ongly

Agre

e

1 2 3 4 5 6

Regulation

1 Legislative authority for implementing

DB

2 Adjustment of regulation on project

characteristics

3 Availability of project risk approach to

managing project risk

4 Adjustment of regulation on tendering

system

5 Adjustment of regulation on contractual

arrangement

Capability of Client and Other Stakeholders

6 Training on DB approaches is

provided to agency staff and external

parties

7 Availability of pilot project


8 Communication and knowledge sharing

among staff of project owners to

facilitate the DB


implementing DB

10 Agency‟s management vision and

support for adopting/implementing the

DB

11 Socialisation and communication with

external parties affected by the DB

system

12 Acceptance of change by owner‟s staff

External Conditions

13 Social environment/ acceptance by

general public

14 Political environment

15 Support and acceptance by relevant

parties/other stakeholders


No The factors that can promote DB

implementation include…

Str

ongly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Sli

ghtl

y

Dis

agre

e

Sli

ghtl

y

Agre

e

Agre

e

Str

ongly

Agre

e

1 2 3 4 5 6

16 Support/acceptance by industry provider

17 Economic environment

18 Physical environment (weather

conditions)

19

Other factors? Please state:

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

The time and effort that you have spent is much appreciated.

C. General Comments

This last section allows you to provide comments on any answers you have

given



Round 2

Implementing Design Build (DB) Project Delivery System in Road

Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

Dear Sir/ Madam

Thank you very much for responding to the Delphi Questionnaire (Round 1) which

has been now analysed. Your feedback was very useful and you responses to the

questions have enabled me to move to the next round of the study.

This is the second round questionnaire of the Delphi study on identifying stakeholder

current understanding of DB project delivery system and success factors for

successful implementation of DB project delivery system. It is estimated that this

questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.

The current understanding and the factors have been analysed and rated based on the

results from all first round questionnaire respondents. Your opinion is required to

evaluate the rating of current understanding of DB project delivery system and the

factors for implementing DB project delivery system.

I wish to assure you again that all information provided through this survey would be

handled with strict confidentiality and reported in a way so as to preserve the

anonymity of the respondents. This study adheres to the ethical procedures and

requirements of Queensland University of Technology (QUT). QUT is committed to

researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects.

If you have any further questions concerning this survey please do not hesitate to

contact the researcher, Anak Agung Diah Parami Dewi at +61425001707 or via

email [email protected].

Kindly, return your questionnaire by email at your earliest convenience. Your

response will be analysed and synthesised in the coming weeks and you will be

contacted for the final round (3) in due course.

Once again thank you for your co-operation and support of this study.



The following tables have been ranked in accordance with the analysis of the first

round questionnaire responses. The ranking is arranged based on median of the

analysis result. Based on your expertise, experience and knowledge, please indicate

your agreement or otherwise you can reconsider and revise the ranking by giving the

new ranking

Section 1: Design Build (Concept, Benefits and Barriers)

1 A : Concept of Design Build project delivery system

Based on result of Delphi round 1, please consider your rating by providing the

agreement on the degree of the agreement below.

High : Agreement of respondents with median 5 and 6

Medium : Agreement of respondents with median 4 and 4.5

Low : Agreement of respondents with median below than 3.5

Rating of

Agreement

Result

from

Round 1

Current Understanding of DB (Concept of DB)

Agreement

Yes/No

If No

Revise the

Rating

Your understanding of DB is that:

High

The client deals directly with the constructor for

the complete design and construction.

The constructor designs and constructs the

project

The project is executed by a single

entity/organization

The constructor/design builder has a single

responsibility

The DB Contract has the Following Characteristics:

High

Integrates design and construction into one

contract

The design and construction are in one

procurement

The contract is based on lump sum fixed price

basis.

Can be procured by limited tender

Design and construction are paid in a single


Medium Includes engineering procurement and

construction

The Project in DB system has the Following

Characteristics:

High

Has varied tasks in project scope

Requires efficient coordination, control and


Needs specialists in project scope

Needs advanced technology

Used for high-risk projects which can endanger

public safety, human life and the environment

Used for projects that can endanger the

environment


Rating of

Agreement

Result

from

Round 1


Agreement

Yes/No

If No

Revise the

Rating

Used for projects that can results in hazards

Used for projects that can endanger the labour at

the project site

Medium

Requires a lot of details about how it should be

executed

Has intricate work in the project

Used for projects which are valued over USD

5,000,000

Used for medium and small size projects

Low

Has a large number of different systems that

need to be put together and/ or with a large

number of interfaces between elements




Involves construction work on a confined site

with access difficulty and requiring many trades

to work in close proximity at the same time

New Indicators for project characteristics :

Please provide your agreement of these indicators and rate the

indicators below by choosing one of these rating below if you

agree

H: High Agreement

M: Medium Agreement

L: Low Agreement

Agreement

Yes/No

If Yes,

Rating of

Agreement

H M L

People involved in DB projects require specific

skills

The project can be executed by several

construction methods


1 B : Benefits of the Design Build project delivery system


agreement on the degree of the agreement below




Rating of

Agreeme

nt

Result

from

Round 1

The DB delivery system provide the

following benefits:

Agreement

Yes/No

If No

Revise the

Rating

Shorter Duration

High

Simultaneous contracting of design and

construction

Overlapping design and construction phase

The key item of materials and components

determined early in the drawing- up of

specification




New Indicator for shorter duration

Please provide your agreement of these indicators and rate

the indicators below by choosing one of these rating below

if you agree

H : High Agreement

M : Medium Agreement

L : Low Agreement

Agreement

Yes/No

If Yes,

Rating of

Agreement

H M L

Procurement is conducted once

Lower Cost

High

Designer and contractor in the same team

Early cost certainty

Early project completion




Better Quality

High


knowledge (constructability) that constructor/

design builder provide

DB allows the use of best value method to

asses quality of design

DB allows the use of best value method to

assess the qualification of constructor/design

builders


Rating of

Agreeme

nt

Result

from

Round 1


following benefits:

Agreement

Yes/No

If No

Revise the

Rating

New Indicators for better quality :



if you agree

H : High Agreement


L : Low Agreement

Agreement

Yes/No

If Yes,

Rating of

Agreement

H M L

Rework can be avoided

Different interpretation among the staff

involved can be avoided

Reducing the possibility of failure can be

avoided

Allowing Innovation

High


management such as increasing transparency

and open communication among project team

members


material as long as they can meet performance

quality criteria

The DB enables contractors to have significant

freedom and flexibility in technique


equipment as long as their results meet the

quality criteria and client objective

DB can promote innovation by utilising the

designers‟ and builders‟ separate strengths to

develop new design and construction

techniques

New Indicator for allowing innovation:



if you agree

H : High Agreement


L : Low Agreement

Agreement

Yes/No

If Yes,

Rating of

Agreement

H M L

DB enables the use of modern construction

techniques and innovative technology

Better Management

High

Single responsibility can lead to minimum


Single responsibility can lead to streamlining

the coordination between the design and

construction teams


Rating of

Agreeme

nt

Result

from

Round 1


following benefits:

Agreement

Yes/No

If No

Revise the

Rating

Single responsibility can lead to lessening the

administrative burdens


between distinct design and construction

entities

Single responsibility can avoid the

complexities of the multiple contracts

Single responsibility can avoid the adversarial

roles amongst parties


1 C : Barrier of Design Build Project Delivery System






Rating of

Agreement

Result from

Round 1

The following are the barriers that can

hinder the implementation of DB

Agreement

Yes/No

If No

Revise

the

Rating

Client Capabilities

High

Lack of experience

Lack of skill

Lack of knowledge

Lack of understanding of staff

Lack of adequate staff

Lack of effort to implement DB

Regulation

High


characteristics

Lack of detailed regulation on tendering system

Lack of regulation on contractual arrangement

Lack of risk management approach


High

A small number of experienced and skilled

other stakeholders in DB

Lack of DB experts

Lack of design capability

Adaptability

High

Clients prefer traditional method to DB

Lack of promotion of DB

Resistance to adopting a new system

Clients do not have confidence in managing

DB

Clients are not aware of the benefits of DB

Medium

Clients are wary of new innovation and

systems

Clients are wary of new innovation and

systems


method


Section 2 : Success factors for Design Build PDS and the barriers in

implementing Design Build PDS





Low : Agreement of respondents with median below than 3.5 Rating of

Agreement

Result

from

Round 1

The following are the Factors that can

influence the successful implementation of

Design Build

Agreement

Yes/No

If No

Revise

the

Rating

Regulation

High

Adjustment of regulation on project

characteristics

Adjustment of regulation on contractual

arrangement

Legislative authority for implementing DB

Availability of project risk approach to managing

project risk

Adjustment of regulation on tendering system


High


provided to agency staff and external parties

Availability of pilot project


High

Communication and knowledge sharing among

staff of project owners to facilitate the DB

Socialisation and communication with external

parties affected by the DB system

Availability of owner‟s staff for implementing

DB

Acceptance of change by owner‟s staff

Agency‟s management vision and support for

adopting/implementing the DB

External Conditions

High


stakeholders

Support/acceptance by industry provider

Medium Political environment

Economic environment

Low Physical environment (weather conditions)

Social environment/ acceptance by general public

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. The time and effort that you have

spent is much appreciated.



Round 2

Implementing Design Build (DB) Project Delivery System in

Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Thank you very much for responding to the Delphi Questionnaire (Round 1) which

has now been analysed. Your feedback was very useful and your responses to the

questions have enabled me to move to the next round of the study.

This is the second round questionnaire of the Delphi study on identifying

stakeholders‟ current understanding of the DB project delivery system and the factors

for successful implementation of the DB project delivery system. It is estimated that

this questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.

The current understanding and the factors have been analysed and rated based on the

results from all first round questionnaire respondents. Your opinion is required to

evaluate the rating of current understandings of the DB project delivery system and

the factors for implementing the system.

I wish to assure you again that all information provided through this survey will be

handled with strict confidentiality and reported in a way so as to preserve the

anonymity of the respondents. This study adheres to the ethical procedures and

requirements of Queensland University of Technology (QUT). QUT is committed to

researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects.

If you have any further questions concerning this survey please do not hesitate to

contact the researcher, Anak Agung Diah Parami Dewi at +61425001707 or via

email [email protected].

Kindly, return your questionnaire by email at your earliest convenience. Your

response will be analysed and synthesised in the coming weeks and you will be

contacted for the final round (3) in due course.

Once again, thank you for your co-operation and support of this study.

The following tables have been ranked in accordance with the analysis of the first

round questionnaire responses. The ranking is arranged based on the median of the

analysis result. Based on your expertise, experience and knowledge, please indicate

your agreement; otherwise, you can reconsider and revise the ranking by giving a

new ranking.

Section 1: Design Build (Concept, Benefits and Barriers)

1A: Concept of Design Build Project Delivery System

Based on the results of Delphi round 1, please consider your rating by indicating

your agreement using the degrees of following degrees of agreement:

High: Agreement of respondents with median 5 and 6

Medium: Agreement of respondents with median 4 and 4.5

Low: Agreement of respondents with median below 4



Rating of

Agreement

with Result

from

Round 1


Agreement

Yes/No

If No. Revise

the

Rating

Your understanding of DB is that:

High

The client deals directly with the constructor for the

complete design and construction

The constructor designs and constructs the project The project is executed by a single

entity/organization

The constructor/design builder has single

responsibility

The DB contract has the following characteristics:

High

Integrates design and construction into one contract The design and construction are in one

procurement

The contract is based on a lump sum fixed price Can be procured by limited tender Design and construction are paid in a single


Medium Includes engineering procurement and construction

The project in a DB system has the following characteristics:

High

Has varied tasks in project scope Requires efficient coordination, control and


Needs specialists in project scope Needs advanced technology Used for high-risk projects which can endanger

public safety, human life and the environment

Used for projects that can endanger the

environment

Used for projects that can results in hazards Used for projects that can endanger the labour at

the project site

Medium

Requires a lot of details about how it should be

executed

Has intricate work in the project Used for projects which are valued over USD

5,000,000

Used for medium and small size projects

Low

Has a large number of different systems that need

to be put together and/ or with a large number of

interfaces between elements




Involves construction work on a confined site with

access difficulty and requiring many trades to work

in close proximity at the same time


Rating of

Agreement

with Result

from

Round 1


Agreement

Yes/No

If No. Revise

the

Rating

New indicators for project characteristics: Please provide your agreement of these indicators and rate the

indicators below by choosing one of these ratings below if you

agree: H: High Agreement M: Medium Agreement L: Low Agreement

Agreement Yes/No

If Yes,

Rating of

Agreemen

t H M L

People involved in DB projects require specific

skills

The project can be executed by several construction

methods


1B: Benefits of the Design Build Project Delivery System

Based on results of Delphi round 1, please consider your rating by indicating your

agreement using the following degrees of agreement:




Rating of

Agreement

with Result from

Round 1

The DB delivery system provides the following

benefits: Agreement Yes/No

If No,

Revise the

Rating

Shorter Duration

High

Simultaneous contracting of design and

construction

Overlapping design and construction phase The key item of materials and components

determined early in the drawing-up of

specifications

Optimum use of the experience and knowledge

(constructability) that the constructor/design

builder provide

New indicator for shorter duration

Please provide your agreement with these indicators and rate

the indicators below by choosing one of these ratings if you


Agreement Yes/No

If Yes,

Rating of

Agreement H M L

Procurement is conducted once

Lower Cost

High

Designer and contractor in the same team

Early cost certainty

Early project completion Optimum use of the experience and knowledge

(constructability) that constructor/design builder

provide

Better Quality

High

Optimum use of the experience and knowledge

(constructability) that constructor/ design builder

provide

DB allows the use of best value method to assess

quality of design

DB allows the use of best value method to assess

the qualification of constructor/design builders


Rating of

Agreement

with Result from

Round 1

The DB delivery system provides the following

benefits: Agreement Yes/No

If No,

Revise the

Rating

New indicators for better quality: Please provide your agreement with these indicators and rate



Agreement Yes/No

If Yes,

Rating of

Agreement H M L

Rework can be avoided Different interpretation among the staff involved

can be avoided

The possibility of failure can be avoided

Allowing Innovation

High

The DB can promote innovation in management

such as increasing transparency and open

communication among project team members


material as long as they can meet performance

quality criteria

The DB enables contractors to have significant

freedom and flexibility in technique

The DB allows contractors to use any equipment

as long as their results meet the quality criteria

and client objective

DB can promote innovation by utilising the

designers‟ and builders‟ separate strengths to

develop new design and construction techniques

New indicators for allowing innovation: Please provide your agreement with these indicators and rate



Agreement Yes/No

If Yes,

Rating of

Agreement H M L

DB enables the use of modern construction

techniques and innovative technology

Better Management

High

Single responsibility can lead to minimum


Single responsibility can lead to streamlining the

coordination between the design and construction

teams

Single responsibility can lead to lessening the

administrative burdens


between distinct design and construction entities

Single responsibility can avoid the complexities

of the multiple contracts

Single responsibility can avoid the adversarial

roles amongst parties


1C: Barriers to Implementation of Design Build Project Delivery System


your agreement using the following degrees of agreement:




Rating of

Agreement

with Result from

Round 1

The following are the barriers that can hinder the

implementation of DB

Agreement Yes/No

If No, Revise the

Rating

Client Capabilities

High

Lack of experience

Lack of skill

Lack of knowledge

Lack of understanding of staff

Lack of adequate staff

Lack of effort to implement DB

Regulation

High


characteristics

Lack of detailed regulation on tendering system

Lack of regulation on contractual arrangement

Lack of risk management approach


High

A small number of experienced and skilled other

stakeholders in DB

Lack of DB experts

Lack of design capability

Adaptability

High

Clients prefer traditional method to DB

Lack of promotion of DB

Resistance to adopting a new system

Clients do not have confidence in managing DB

Clients are not aware of the benefits of DB

Medium

Clients are wary of new innovation and systems

Clients are wary of new innovation and systems


method


Section 2 : Success factors for Design Build Project Delivery System and the

barriers in implementing Design Build Project Delivery System


your agreement using the following degrees of agreement:




Rating of

Agreement

with Result from

Round 1

The following are the factors that can influence the

successful implementation of Design Build

Agreement

Yes/No

If No, Revise the

Rating

Regulation

High

Adjustment of regulation on project characteristics Adjustment of regulation on contractual

arrangement

Legislative authority for implementing DB Availability of project risk approach to managing

project risk

Adjustment of regulation on tendering system


High Training on DB approaches is provided to agency staff and external parties



High

Communication and knowledge sharing among

staff of project owners to facilitate the DB

Socialisation and communication with external

parties affected by the DB system

Availability of owner‟s staff for implementing DB

Acceptance of change by owner‟s staff

Agency‟s management vision and support for


External Conditions

High


stakeholders

Support/acceptance by industry provider

Medium Political environment

Economic environment

Low Physical environment (weather conditions)

Social environment/ acceptance by general public

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. The time and effort that you have

spent is much appreciated.

APPENDIX D – Pair-Wise Comparison Survey 209

APPENDIX D – Pair-Wise Comparison Survey

Pair-Wise Comparison Survey

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Pair-Wise Comparison Survey for my

PhD research with the title Implementing a Design Build Project Delivery System in

Road Infrastructure in Indonesia. This research focuses on how a Design Build

(DB) project delivery system can be successfully implemented in Indonesian road

infrastructure projects. Its overall aim is to develop a model to guide successful

implementation of the Design Build project delivery system in Indonesia road

infrastructure projects. The findings of this research could significantly promote the

implementation of the Design Build project delivery system in Indonesian road

infrastructure projects.

This survey aims to seek expert opinions to identify the hierarchy and relationships

between the factors that can promote the implementation of the Design Build project

delivery system. The survey should take no more than 20-30 minutes to complete. I

would appreciate if you could complete the survey within the next two (2) weeks in

order to facilitate the next round of Delphi study. The second round of questions

would be distributed 2 weeks after the returned date of the first survey, and

participants will be again allocated 2 weeks to complete the questionnaire.

Please be assured that your responses will be held in the strictest of confidence and

used only to gather data for university research. No individual will be identified at

any time during the study process. If you have any further questions concerning this

survey please do not hesitate to contact the researcher, Anak Agung Diah Parami

Dewi at +61416741707 or via email [email protected]. This

study adheres to the ethical procedures and requirements of Queensland University

of Technology (QUT). QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical

conduct of research projects.

Please answer as fully as possible. Your cooperation and participation in this

important survey is appreciated. Thank you again for taking the time to assist with

this research.


210 APPENDIX D – Pair-Wise Comparison Survey

I. Relationship between factors

Please provide the relationship between the barriers.

The following tables are the comparisons between factor i (Fi) and other factors (Fj).

V: If Factor i (Fi) influences Factor j (Fj)

A: If Factor j (Fj) influences Factor i (Fi)

X: If Factors i (Fi) and j (Fj) influence each other

O: If Factors i (Fi) and j (Fj) do not influence each other

Factor 1 (F1) compared to other factors (F2, F3, F4, F5....F14)

Factor i (Fi) = Factor 1 V A X O

Factor j (Fj) = Other Factors

Adjustment of regulation

on project characteristics Adjustment of regulation on



implementing DB

Availability of project risk

approach to managing project risk

Adjustment of regulation on

tendering system


provided to agency staff and

external parties


Communication and knowledge

sharing among staff of project

owners to facilitate the DB

Socialisation and communication

with external parties affected by

the DB system

Availability of owner‟s staff for

implementing DB

Acceptance of change by owner‟s

staff

Agency‟s management vision and

support for


Support and acceptance by

relevant parties/other stakeholders

Support/acceptance by industry

providers


Factor 2 (F2) compared to other factors (F3, F4, F5....F14)

Factor i (Fi) =Factor 2 V A X O


Adjustment of

regulation on



implementing DB


approach to managing project

risk


tendering system



external parties







the DB system


implementing DB


owner‟s staff


and support for



relevant parties/other

stakeholders


providers


Factor 3 (F3) compared to other factors (F4, F5....F14)




implementing DB


approach to managing project

risk


tendering system



external parties







the DB system


implementing DB


owner‟s staff


and support for




stakeholders


providers





Availability of project

risk approach to

managing project risk


tendering system



external parties







the DB system


implementing DB


owner‟s staff


and support for




stakeholders


providers





Adjustment of

regulation on tendering

system



external parties







the DB system


implementing DB


owner‟s staff


and support for




stakeholders


providers




Training on DB

approaches isprovided

to agency staff and

external parties







the DB system


implementing DB


owner‟s staff


and support for




stakeholders


providers





Availability of pilot

project




Socialisation and


parties affected by the DB

system


implementing DB


owner‟s staff


and support for




stakeholders


providers




Communication and

knowledge sharing

among staff of project

owners to facilitate the

DB

Socialisation and


parties affected by the DB

system


implementing DB


owner‟s staff


and support for




stakeholders


providers





Socialisation and

communication with

external parties affected

by the DB system


implementing DB


owner‟s staff


and support for




stakeholders


providers


Factor i (Fi) = Factor

10 V A X O


Availability of owner‟s

staff for implementing

DB


owner‟s staff


and support for




stakeholders


providers

Factor 11 (F11) compared to other factors (F12, F13 and F14)

Factor i (Fi) = Factor

11 V A X O


Acceptance of change

by owner‟s staff


and support for




stakeholders


providers


Factor 12 (F12) compared to other factors (F13 and F14)



Agency‟s management

vision and support for

adopting/implementing

the DB



stakeholders


providers

Factor 13 (F13) compared to another factor (F14)


Factor j (Fj) = Other Factor

Agency‟s management

vision and support for

adopting/implementing

the DB Support and

acceptance by relevant

parties/other stakeholders


providers

Thank you for your participation in this survey

APPENDIX E – SPSS Results 219

APPENDIX E – SPSS Results

Results SPSS Round 1

Concept of the DB Project Delivery System Frequencies

[DataSet1] D:\delphi round 1\definition of DB.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 5.10 5.20 4.65 5.05

Median 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 6 5a 5 6

Std. Deviation 1.518 1.152 1.137 1.317

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

Frequencies [DataSet2] D:\delphi round 1\contract and procurement

characteristic.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.65 5.10 5.00 4.40 4.40 4.40

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.137 1.210 1.214 1.429 1.095 1.188

220 APPENDIX E – SPSS Results

Frequencies

[DataSet3] D:\delphi round 1\project characteristics.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.00 4.50 4.45 4.45 5.20 4.55

Median 4.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.376 1.051 1.050 .999 .696 1.050

Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.10 5.05 4.10 3.70 4.40 3.65

Median 4.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 3.50

Mode 5 5 4 3 5 3

Std. Deviation .968 .686 .852 1.261 .995 1.137

Q13 Q14 Q15

N Valid 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0

Mean 4.15 3.45 4.35

Median 4.00 3.00 5.00

Mode 3 3 5

Std. Deviation 1.040 .887 .988

Advantages of the DB Project Delivery System Frequencies [DataSet4] D:\delphi round 1\shorter duration.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 5.20 4.85 4.25 5.00

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation .696 .933 1.209 .725


Frequencies [DataSet5] D:\delphi round 1\lower cost.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.85 4.50 5.15 5.00

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.040 1.100 .745 .973

Frequencies

[DataSet6] D:\delphi round 1\better quality.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3

N Valid 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0

Mean 4.95 4.70 4.90

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5

Std. Deviation .887 .865 .788

Frequencies [DataSet7] D:\delphi round 1\allowing innovation.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 5.20 5.10 5.10 5.15 5.30

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation .616 .718 .788 .745 .657


Frequencies [DataSet8] D:\delphi round 1\better management.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 5.10 5.00 5.00 4.90 4.40 4.50

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation .718 .973 .858 .788 .821 1.147

Barriers to Implementing the DB Project Delivery System Frequencies

[DataSet9] D:\delphi round 1\barrier_regulation.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.65 4.65 4.40 4.70

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.089 .933 1.188 .923

Frequencies

[DataSet9] D:\delphi round 1\barrier_regulation.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.65 4.65 4.40 4.70

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.089 .933 1.188 .923


Frequencies [DataSet10] D:\delphi round 1\barrier_clientcapability.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.80 4.65 4.70 4.65 4.85 4.95

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5 6 5

Std. Deviation 1.005 .933 .923 .587 1.089 1.099

Frequencies

[DataSet11] D:\delphi round 1\Barrier_other stakeholders'

capability.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3

N Valid 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0

Mean 4.80 4.65 4.65

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5


Frequencies

[DataSet11] D:\delphi round 1\Barrier_other stakeholders'

capability.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3

N Valid 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0

Mean 4.80 4.65 4.65

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5



Frequencies [DataSet12] D:\delphi round 1\barrier_adaptability.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.80 4.70 4.70 4.50

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.005 .979 1.129 1.000

Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

N Valid 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.15 4.40 4.40 4.40

Median 4.50 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.040 1.046 1.046 .940

Frequencies [DataSet11] D:\delphi round 1\Barrier_other stakeholders'

capability.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3

N Valid 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0

Mean 4.80 4.65 4.65

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5




Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.80 4.70 4.70 4.50

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.005 .979 1.129 1.000

Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

N Valid 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.15 4.20 4.40 4.40

Median 4.50 4.50 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.040 1.105 1.046 .940

Factors Promoting the Implementation of the DB Project Delivery

System Frequencies [DataSet13] D:\delphi round 1\factors_regulation.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.55 4.95 4.50 4.40 4.60

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation .887 .887 .889 .883 .821


Frequencies

[DataSet14] D:\delphi round 1\factors_client and other participant

capablity.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2

N Valid 20 20

Missing 0 0

Mean 5.20 5.15

Median 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5

Std. Deviation .616 .587

Frequencies [DataSet15] D:\delphi round 1\factors_management by client.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 5.20 5.15 5.10 5.20 5.15

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation .616 .671 .641 .696 .745

Frequencies [DataSet15] D:\delphi round 1\factors_management by client.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 5.20 5.15 5.10 5.20 5.15

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation .616 .671 .641 .696 .745


Frequencies

[DataSet16] D:\delphi round 1\factors_externalcondition.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20 20

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 3.60 3.95 4.50 4.25 3.95 3.60

Median 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 3.00

Mode 3 5 5 5 5 3

Std. Deviation 1.392 1.356 1.147 1.517 1.356 1.392


Results SPSS Round 2

GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\concept_definition.sav'.

DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.

SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\concept_definition.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

/NTILES=4

/PERCENTILES=25.0 75.0

/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

[DataSet1] D:\delphi round 2\concept_definition.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .000 .000 .000 .000

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0


Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\concept_contract and procurement

characteristics.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\concept_contract and procurement

characteristics.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

[DataSet2] D:\delphi round 2\concept_contract and procurement

characteristics.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18 18

Missin

g

0 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .000 .000 .236 .428 .236 .428

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0


Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 77.8 77.8 77.8

Disagree 4 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q5


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q6


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 77.8 77.8 77.8

Disagree 4 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\concept_projectcharacteristic.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\concept_projectcharacteristic.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14

Q15

/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

[DataSet3] D:\delphi round 2\concept_projectcharacteristic.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .236 .383 .236 .323 .000 .323

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .236 .323 .323 .236 .323 .236

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Q13 Q14 Q15

N Valid 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0


Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.25 1.25


Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q5


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0


Q6


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q7


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q8


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q9


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q10


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q11


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q12


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q13


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q14


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 77.8 77.8 77.8

Disagree 4 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q15


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 77.8 77.8 77.8

Disagree 4 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

GET


FILE='D:\delphi round 2\concept_project characteristics new

concept.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\concept_project characteristics new

concept.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1 Q2

/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

[DataSet4] D:\delphi round 2\concept_project characteristics new

concept.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2

N Valid 18 18

Missing 0 0


Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

GET


FILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_shorterduration.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_shorterduration.sav'

/COMPRESSED.


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet5] D:\delphi round 2\benefit_shorterduration.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .000 .000 .323 .000

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0


GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_shorter duration proposed

advantages.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_shorter duration proposed

advantages.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1

/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet6] D:\delphi round 2\benefit_shorter duration proposed

advantages.sav

Statistics

Q1

N Valid 18

Missing 0

Std. Deviation .000

Percentiles 25 1.00

50 1.00

75 1.00

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_lowercost.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_lowercost.sav'

/COMPRESSED.


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.


Frequencies [DataSet7] D:\delphi round 2\benefit_lowercost.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .000 .323 .236 .000

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0


GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_betterquality.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_betterquality.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1 Q2 Q3

/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet8] D:\delphi round 2\benefit_betterquality.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3

N Valid 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0


Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


GET

FILE='D:\delphi round

2\benefit_betterquality_proposedbenefit.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round

2\benefit_betterquality_proposedbenefit.sav'

/COMPRESSED.


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet9] D:\delphi round

2\benefit_betterquality_proposedbenefit.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3

N Valid 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0


Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_allowinginnovation.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_allowinginnovation.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet10] D:\delphi round 2\benefit_allowinginnovation.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .000 .323 .236 .000 .000

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

GET

FILE='D:\delphi round

2\benefit_allowinginnovation_proposedbenefit.sav'.


FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1

/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet11] D:\delphi round

2\benefit_allowinginnovation_proposedbenefit.sav

Statistics

Q1

N Valid 18

Missing 0

Std. Deviation .000

Percentiles 25 1.00

50 1.00

75 1.00


Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_bettermanagement.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\benefit_bettermanagement.sav'

/COMPRESSED.


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet12] D:\delphi round 2\benefit_bettermanagement.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .323 .000 .323 .236 .323 .383

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q5


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q6


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\barrier_regulation.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\barrier_regulation.sav'

/COMPRESSED.


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet13] D:\delphi round 2\barrier_regulation.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

N Valid 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .236 .236 .000 .236

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0


Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

GET

FILE="D:\delphi round 2\barrier_clients' capability.sav".


SAVE OUTFILE="D:\delphi round 2\barrier_clients' capability.sav"

/COMPRESSED.


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequenices [DataSet14] D:\delphi round 2\barrier_clients' capability.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .323 .236 .323 .236 .383 .236

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q5


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q6


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


GET

FILE="D:\delphi round 2\barrier_other stakeholders'

capability.sav".


SAVE OUTFILE="D:\delphi round 2\barrier_other stakeholders'

capability.sav"

/COMPRESSED.


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

[DataSet15] D:\delphi round 2\barrier_other stakeholders'

capability.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3

N Valid 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0


Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.25 1.00 1.25

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 77.8 77.8 77.8

Disagree 4 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 77.8 77.8 77.8

Disagree 4 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\barrier_adaptability.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\barrier_adaptability.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.


Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Std.

Deviation

.383 .428 .236 .383 .383 .323 .323 .236

Per

cen

tiles

25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 77.8 77.8 77.8

Disagree 4 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q5


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q6


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q7


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q8


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\factors_rgulation.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\factors_rgulation.sav'

/COMPRESSED.


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

[DataSet17] D:\delphi round 2\factors_rgulation.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .000 .428 .000 .000 .383

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00


Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 14 77.8 77.8 77.8

Disagree 4 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\factors_client and other stakeholder

capability.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\factors_client and other stakeholder

capability.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\factors_client and other stakeholder

capability.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Q1 Q2

/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

[DataSet18] D:\delphi round 2\factors_client and other stakeholder

capability.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2

N Valid 18 18

Missing 0 0


Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 18 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\factors_management.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\factors_management.sav'

/COMPRESSED.


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet19] D:\delphi round 2\factors_management.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .236 .236 .383 .383 .323

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q5


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


GET

FILE='D:\delphi round 2\factors_externalcondition.sav'.


SAVE OUTFILE='D:\delphi round 2\factors_externalcondition.sav'

/COMPRESSED.


/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies [DataSet20] D:\delphi round 2\factors_externalcondition.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q5


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q6


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


/NTILES=4


/STATISTICS=STDDEV

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

[DataSet20] D:\delphi round 2\factors_externalcondition.sav

Statistics

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

N Valid 18 18 18 18 18 18

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .323 .383 .236 .236 .323 .383

Percentiles 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00


Frequency Table

Q1


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q2


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q3


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q4


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 17 94.4 94.4 94.4

Disagree 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Q5


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 16 88.9 88.9 88.9

Disagree 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0


Q6


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 15 83.3 83.3 83.3

Disagree 3 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX F – List of Publications 261

APPENDIX F – List of Publications

List of Publication

Dewi, A. P., Too E., & Trigunarsyah, B. (2011).Implementing Design Build

Project Delivery System in Road Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia. Paper

presented at CIBW 107 Construction in Developing Countries on 1 – 3 October

2011, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Dewi, A. P., Trigunarsyah, B., Too, E., & Coffey, V. (2012). Factors

Contributing to Design Build Project Delivery System Implementation in Road

Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia. Paper presented at ICCIDC – III, Third

Conference on Construction in Developing Countries on 4 – 6 July 2012, Bangkok,

Thailand.

framework for implementing design build project … agung diah_parami... · 2013. 8. 8. ·...

Documents