Optimal Outcome Sharing among Clients, Builders, and Designers in Collaborative Construction Contracts: Comparing Design–Bid–Build and Design–Build Methods Using Principal–Agent Theory

AbstractThis study addresses a significant gap in the literature by proposing an optimal outcome–sharing framework within client–builder–designer relationships, specifically in design–bid–build (DBB) and design–build (DB) project delivery methods. Based on the assumption of different degrees of risk...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of construction engineering and management 2025-03, Vol.151 (3)
Hauptverfasser: Mokhtari, Mitra, Hosseinian, S. Mahdi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 3
container_start_page
container_title Journal of construction engineering and management
container_volume 151
creator Mokhtari, Mitra
Hosseinian, S. Mahdi
description AbstractThis study addresses a significant gap in the literature by proposing an optimal outcome–sharing framework within client–builder–designer relationships, specifically in design–bid–build (DBB) and design–build (DB) project delivery methods. Based on the assumption of different degrees of risk avoidance among all parties involved, this research focuses on collaborative contracting scenarios where designers and builders collaborate with clients. Our study investigates the allocation of outcome shares and how they are affected by the risk avoidance levels of the contracting parties. To achieve this, we developed a mathematical model based on principal–agent theory and conducted empirical investigations through structured exercises with construction practitioners in Iran. Key findings reveal that optimal outcome shares for designers remain consistent across both DBB and DB delivery methods, while builders’ optimal shares vary depending on the delivery method. Specifically, in DBB delivery, the client’s share is higher due to its leadership role, whereas in DB delivery, the builder’s share increases as it assumes a leadership role. Furthermore, our results highlight the importance of considering risk preferences in collaborative contracting, because they significantly impact outcome allocation decisions. This study contributes to contract literature by offering innovative insights into outcome sharing among clients, builders, and designers, along with a practical framework for structuring compensation. Practical ApplicationsThis study offers insights for negotiating fair outcome-sharing agreements in construction projects, considering varying levels of risk avoidance. Understanding how risk avoidance affects outcome allocation can inform the negotiation process and help stakeholders achieve more equitable and mutually beneficial agreements.
doi_str_mv 10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-15173
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3149306963</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3149306963</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a1113-4333af364fc256544e3531e2706185d50130d676fd12992803ddcdbe8019ab173</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UUFOwzAQtBBIlMIHOFniSqgdJ07DrQ2lgFqKRHuO3NhpXaVxsB2k3vgDH-ItvASnQcCJy3rXuzNrzwBwjtEVRhT3HpLR9Ca4Smajx7GHQxyRA9DBcUC8qE_9Q9BBESFeTGhwDE6M2SCEAxqHHfAxq6zcsgLOapuprYDPa6ZluYJsq1xMCilKay7hsJYFF9plrOTwRhi5Kl0JZQkTVRRsqTSz8lW4qjRW15mVqmmVVrPMmmuXbquWuQV_vr0PJW9iw_yH9edqKuxacQMXpkE9OWwmK1a4_mDlHgXna6H07hQc5aww4uz77ILF7Wie3HmT2fg-GUw8hjEmXkAIYbn7f575IQ2DQJCQYOFHTr1-yEOECeI0ojnHfhz7fUQ4z_hS9BGO2dLp2QUXLW-l1UstjE03qtalW5kSHMQE0ZgSN-W3U5lWxmiRp5V28updilHaOJW2TqV7p9K9Uw7Ua0HMZOKX9h_EF7aGm_o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3149306963</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Optimal Outcome Sharing among Clients, Builders, and Designers in Collaborative Construction Contracts: Comparing Design–Bid–Build and Design–Build Methods Using Principal–Agent Theory</title><source>American Society of Civil Engineers:NESLI2:Journals:2014</source><creator>Mokhtari, Mitra ; Hosseinian, S. Mahdi</creator><creatorcontrib>Mokhtari, Mitra ; Hosseinian, S. Mahdi</creatorcontrib><description>AbstractThis study addresses a significant gap in the literature by proposing an optimal outcome–sharing framework within client–builder–designer relationships, specifically in design–bid–build (DBB) and design–build (DB) project delivery methods. Based on the assumption of different degrees of risk avoidance among all parties involved, this research focuses on collaborative contracting scenarios where designers and builders collaborate with clients. Our study investigates the allocation of outcome shares and how they are affected by the risk avoidance levels of the contracting parties. To achieve this, we developed a mathematical model based on principal–agent theory and conducted empirical investigations through structured exercises with construction practitioners in Iran. Key findings reveal that optimal outcome shares for designers remain consistent across both DBB and DB delivery methods, while builders’ optimal shares vary depending on the delivery method. Specifically, in DBB delivery, the client’s share is higher due to its leadership role, whereas in DB delivery, the builder’s share increases as it assumes a leadership role. Furthermore, our results highlight the importance of considering risk preferences in collaborative contracting, because they significantly impact outcome allocation decisions. This study contributes to contract literature by offering innovative insights into outcome sharing among clients, builders, and designers, along with a practical framework for structuring compensation. Practical ApplicationsThis study offers insights for negotiating fair outcome-sharing agreements in construction projects, considering varying levels of risk avoidance. Understanding how risk avoidance affects outcome allocation can inform the negotiation process and help stakeholders achieve more equitable and mutually beneficial agreements.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0733-9364</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-7862</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-15173</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: American Society of Civil Engineers</publisher><subject>Avoidance ; Clients ; Collaboration ; Construction contracts ; Design ; Designers ; Leadership ; Technical Papers</subject><ispartof>Journal of construction engineering and management, 2025-03, Vol.151 (3)</ispartof><rights>2024 American Society of Civil Engineers</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a1113-4333af364fc256544e3531e2706185d50130d676fd12992803ddcdbe8019ab173</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7967-5411</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-15173$$EPDF$$P50$$Gasce$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-15173$$EHTML$$P50$$Gasce$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923,75963,75971</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mokhtari, Mitra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hosseinian, S. Mahdi</creatorcontrib><title>Optimal Outcome Sharing among Clients, Builders, and Designers in Collaborative Construction Contracts: Comparing Design–Bid–Build and Design–Build Methods Using Principal–Agent Theory</title><title>Journal of construction engineering and management</title><description>AbstractThis study addresses a significant gap in the literature by proposing an optimal outcome–sharing framework within client–builder–designer relationships, specifically in design–bid–build (DBB) and design–build (DB) project delivery methods. Based on the assumption of different degrees of risk avoidance among all parties involved, this research focuses on collaborative contracting scenarios where designers and builders collaborate with clients. Our study investigates the allocation of outcome shares and how they are affected by the risk avoidance levels of the contracting parties. To achieve this, we developed a mathematical model based on principal–agent theory and conducted empirical investigations through structured exercises with construction practitioners in Iran. Key findings reveal that optimal outcome shares for designers remain consistent across both DBB and DB delivery methods, while builders’ optimal shares vary depending on the delivery method. Specifically, in DBB delivery, the client’s share is higher due to its leadership role, whereas in DB delivery, the builder’s share increases as it assumes a leadership role. Furthermore, our results highlight the importance of considering risk preferences in collaborative contracting, because they significantly impact outcome allocation decisions. This study contributes to contract literature by offering innovative insights into outcome sharing among clients, builders, and designers, along with a practical framework for structuring compensation. Practical ApplicationsThis study offers insights for negotiating fair outcome-sharing agreements in construction projects, considering varying levels of risk avoidance. Understanding how risk avoidance affects outcome allocation can inform the negotiation process and help stakeholders achieve more equitable and mutually beneficial agreements.</description><subject>Avoidance</subject><subject>Clients</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Construction contracts</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Designers</subject><subject>Leadership</subject><subject>Technical Papers</subject><issn>0733-9364</issn><issn>1943-7862</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2025</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UUFOwzAQtBBIlMIHOFniSqgdJ07DrQ2lgFqKRHuO3NhpXaVxsB2k3vgDH-ItvASnQcCJy3rXuzNrzwBwjtEVRhT3HpLR9Ca4Smajx7GHQxyRA9DBcUC8qE_9Q9BBESFeTGhwDE6M2SCEAxqHHfAxq6zcsgLOapuprYDPa6ZluYJsq1xMCilKay7hsJYFF9plrOTwRhi5Kl0JZQkTVRRsqTSz8lW4qjRW15mVqmmVVrPMmmuXbquWuQV_vr0PJW9iw_yH9edqKuxacQMXpkE9OWwmK1a4_mDlHgXna6H07hQc5aww4uz77ILF7Wie3HmT2fg-GUw8hjEmXkAIYbn7f575IQ2DQJCQYOFHTr1-yEOECeI0ojnHfhz7fUQ4z_hS9BGO2dLp2QUXLW-l1UstjE03qtalW5kSHMQE0ZgSN-W3U5lWxmiRp5V28updilHaOJW2TqV7p9K9Uw7Ua0HMZOKX9h_EF7aGm_o</recordid><startdate>20250301</startdate><enddate>20250301</enddate><creator>Mokhtari, Mitra</creator><creator>Hosseinian, S. Mahdi</creator><general>American Society of Civil Engineers</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7967-5411</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20250301</creationdate><title>Optimal Outcome Sharing among Clients, Builders, and Designers in Collaborative Construction Contracts: Comparing Design–Bid–Build and Design–Build Methods Using Principal–Agent Theory</title><author>Mokhtari, Mitra ; Hosseinian, S. Mahdi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a1113-4333af364fc256544e3531e2706185d50130d676fd12992803ddcdbe8019ab173</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2025</creationdate><topic>Avoidance</topic><topic>Clients</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Construction contracts</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Designers</topic><topic>Leadership</topic><topic>Technical Papers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mokhtari, Mitra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hosseinian, S. Mahdi</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of construction engineering and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mokhtari, Mitra</au><au>Hosseinian, S. Mahdi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Optimal Outcome Sharing among Clients, Builders, and Designers in Collaborative Construction Contracts: Comparing Design–Bid–Build and Design–Build Methods Using Principal–Agent Theory</atitle><jtitle>Journal of construction engineering and management</jtitle><date>2025-03-01</date><risdate>2025</risdate><volume>151</volume><issue>3</issue><issn>0733-9364</issn><eissn>1943-7862</eissn><abstract>AbstractThis study addresses a significant gap in the literature by proposing an optimal outcome–sharing framework within client–builder–designer relationships, specifically in design–bid–build (DBB) and design–build (DB) project delivery methods. Based on the assumption of different degrees of risk avoidance among all parties involved, this research focuses on collaborative contracting scenarios where designers and builders collaborate with clients. Our study investigates the allocation of outcome shares and how they are affected by the risk avoidance levels of the contracting parties. To achieve this, we developed a mathematical model based on principal–agent theory and conducted empirical investigations through structured exercises with construction practitioners in Iran. Key findings reveal that optimal outcome shares for designers remain consistent across both DBB and DB delivery methods, while builders’ optimal shares vary depending on the delivery method. Specifically, in DBB delivery, the client’s share is higher due to its leadership role, whereas in DB delivery, the builder’s share increases as it assumes a leadership role. Furthermore, our results highlight the importance of considering risk preferences in collaborative contracting, because they significantly impact outcome allocation decisions. This study contributes to contract literature by offering innovative insights into outcome sharing among clients, builders, and designers, along with a practical framework for structuring compensation. Practical ApplicationsThis study offers insights for negotiating fair outcome-sharing agreements in construction projects, considering varying levels of risk avoidance. Understanding how risk avoidance affects outcome allocation can inform the negotiation process and help stakeholders achieve more equitable and mutually beneficial agreements.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>American Society of Civil Engineers</pub><doi>10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-15173</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7967-5411</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0733-9364
ispartof Journal of construction engineering and management, 2025-03, Vol.151 (3)
issn 0733-9364
1943-7862
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_3149306963
source American Society of Civil Engineers:NESLI2:Journals:2014
subjects Avoidance
Clients
Collaboration
Construction contracts
Design
Designers
Leadership
Technical Papers
title Optimal Outcome Sharing among Clients, Builders, and Designers in Collaborative Construction Contracts: Comparing Design–Bid–Build and Design–Build Methods Using Principal–Agent Theory
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T13%3A26%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Optimal%20Outcome%20Sharing%20among%20Clients,%20Builders,%20and%20Designers%20in%20Collaborative%20Construction%20Contracts:%20Comparing%20Design%E2%80%93Bid%E2%80%93Build%20and%20Design%E2%80%93Build%20Methods%20Using%20Principal%E2%80%93Agent%20Theory&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20construction%20engineering%20and%20management&rft.au=Mokhtari,%20Mitra&rft.date=2025-03-01&rft.volume=151&rft.issue=3&rft.issn=0733-9364&rft.eissn=1943-7862&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-15173&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3149306963%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3149306963&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true