sustainability

Article
Optimization of Green Building Design Processes:
Case Studies within the European Union
Alessandro Orsi 1 , Ignacio Guillén-Guillamón 1 and Eugenio Pellicer 2, *
1 School of Architecture, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain;
[email protected] (A.O.); [email protected] (I.G.-G.)
2 School of Civil Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-963-879-562




Received: 28 January 2020; Accepted: 12 March 2020; Published: 14 March 2020


Abstract: Green buildings have recently become a key aspect of the construction field and bring along
a renovation of the whole industry chain. Such changes introduce new challenges for all subjects
involved, and designers are also affected by such issues, especially for the development of projects
based on international green building standards. Within this scope, project management plays a key
role in the optimization of the design phase. This research analyzes the design process of international
projects from the project management perspective through a multiple case study approach, considering
the sustainability-related tasks that negatively affect the project design development under two
types of contractual approaches: Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build. It aims to identify whether
the Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build process is the best solution for developing green building
projects. Two case studies in Italy and two case studies in Spain are analyzed, and the effects of
the project management issues are evaluated under three different points of view: Time, cost, and
level of sustainability of the building. A poorly planned process for the achievement of the various
green building features of the project can impact the project schedule and the budget, whereas,
a poorly managed project could also negatively impact its green building features. Finally, this
research also highlights the positive relationship between process integration and green building
design development.

Keywords: design-bid-build; design-build; green building; lean; optimization; project

1. Introduction
Sustainability is a broad concept that reflects the resilience of the environment on human
actions [1,2]. Over the years, the implementation of sustainability on processes, products, and services
has been standardized through a variety of rating tools [3–5]. Within the global construction industry,
sustainability is gaining momentum [6–8]. Furthermore, according to [9] (p. 1), “ . . . an increased
emphasis must be placed on the processes and competencies required to deliver high-performance
buildings”. One of the main pillars for the development of high-performance (or green) buildings is
process integration [1,10], considering the planning, design, construction, and operation phases of the
facility lifecycle [5,11,12]. This way, during the last decade, green building projects have been using
project management processes and tools [8,12,13].
Emerging research and education programs are focused on understanding all aspects of delivering
high-performance (or green) projects to minimize waste, maximize value, and reduce costs [13–17].
This can be enhanced through project management, considering the application of knowledge, skills,
tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements [18]. The primary challenge
of project management is to achieve all of the project goals within given constraints, which are
considered the scope, time, quality, and budget. The secondary challenge is to optimize the allocation

Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276; doi:10.3390/su12062276 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 2 of 16

of necessary inputs and integrate them to meet pre-defined objectives [18]. During the last years,
several research studies have analyzed project management processes to optimize green building
projects focusing on various aspects, such as leadership factors [19,20], building information modelling
implementation [12,21], lean construction [13,14], economic value [22], schedule performance [23],
procurement approaches [24], rating systems [3], best practices [11], project-based organizations [25],
processes [1], design teams [26], and design development [27,28].
The management of the design phase is especially critical within the facility lifecycle, as any later
changes will produce cost overruns and delays [12,29]. Designers involved in the development of
projects based on international green building standards face additional challenges, primarily the need
for additional design time, uncertainty regarding special equipment and materials, inclusion of green
requirements in the contractual specifications, and planning green activities within the general master
plan [1,8,29]. In this scenario, the standardization of procedures through green building certification is
appropriate [5,30]. This way, reference standards, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design [31], or the British Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method [32], have
begun to be implemented as an international benchmark for the definition of common sustainable
quality for buildings. LEED and BREEAM are the most used reference standards for green building
worldwide [5,30] developed on the basis of the Anglo-American scenario. Furthermore, different
methodologies and tools, such as life-cycle assessment, resource planning, green building reference
standards, building information modeling, and others have been implemented in order to improve
building sustainability [7,8,33], and it is important to coordinate such new tasks through appropriate
project management processes [13–17].
Furthermore, case studies, interviews, standards, and data collection used for the majority of the
accessed research articles related to project management and green building management are also
mainly focused on the Anglo-American construction process [8,10,24,26]. In the European Union, the
construction and project management processes differ from the Anglo-American approach [34,35]:
There are European Union regulations that must be considered in every European country (local laws
are subjected to these regulations too). Besides, more stakeholders are involved, i.e., the director of
works acts as the representative of the owner during the construction phase, and the coordinator of
health and safety is the person responsible for health and safety matters [36,37]. This way, the European
scenario establishes new hierarchies within the whole construction and project development process.
As in the United States, the most common contractual approaches in Europe are Design-Bid-Build
and Design-Build [38,39]. The Design-Build approach is more integrated and collaborative than the
Design-Bid-Build approach, not only in the United States but also in the European Union [24,35].
These considerations provided the research gap for the scope of this study: The implementation
of Anglo-American protocols within the European reality could cause project management issues
during the project design phase depending on the choice of contractual approach: Design-Bid-Build
or Design-Build.

2. Research Goals
This study aims to analyze the project management issues that take place during the design
process of green building projects. The scope of this research is focused on projects developed within
the EU. The first goal of the research is to identify the project management factors affecting the green
building design process within the EU regulations and context. This goal requires some steps to
achieve:

• Identify a specific gap within the current body of knowledge;

• Define a feasible and adequate case study protocol to carry out this research;
• Identify and analyze a satisfactory number of case studies to develop the research;
• Categorize the project management issues affecting the green building design process.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 3 of 16

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

The second goal of this research is to investigate how the implementation of a Design-Build
The second
process goal ofthe
could benefit this research is of
development togreen
investigate how
building the implementation
projects in comparison toofa aDesign-Bid-Build
Design-Build
process could
one. This goal benefit the the
also requires development
developmentofof green building
two other steps: projects in comparison to a
Design-Bid-Build one. This goal also requires the development of two other steps:
• Evaluate the impact of each project management issues on design processes;
• Evaluate the impact of each project management issues on design processes;
• Investigate the relationship between process integration (Design-Bid-Build vs. Design-Build) and
• Investigate the relationship between process integration (Design-Bid-Build vs. Design-Build)
green building design development.
and green building design development.
3. Research Method
3. Research Method
3.1. Overall Approach
3.1. Overall Approach
As stated previously, this research aims to analyze the project management issues occurring during
theAs statedprocess
design previously, thisbuilding
of green researchprojects,
aims to they
analyze theeither
apply project management issues
Design-Bid-Build occurring
or Design-Build
during the design
contractual processwithin
approaches of green building
the EU. projects,isthey
This research apply
carried out either Design-Bid-Build
following or
the six main steps
Design-Build contractual approaches within the EU. This research is carried
summarized in Figure 1. Each step of the research is briefly described as follows: out following the six
main steps summarized in Figure 1. Each step of the research is briefly described as follows:
1. Literature review: To identify the knowledge gap;
1. Literature review: To identify the knowledge gap;
2. Pilot case study: To define a feasible research protocol;
2. Pilot case study: To define a feasible research protocol;
3. Selection of case studies: To identify suitable case studies;
3. Selection of case studies: To identify suitable case studies;
4. Case study analysis: To analyze the case studies and to categorize the project management issues
4. Case study analysis: To analyze the case studies and to categorize the project management
affecting the green building design process;
issues affecting the green building design process;
5. 5. Cross-case
Cross-case analysis:
analysis: To To identify
identify thethe impact
impact of of each
each project
project management
management issues
issues onon Design-Build
Design-Build
and Design-Bid-Build processes;
and Design-Bid-Build processes;
6. Conclusions:
6. Conclusions: To To highlight
highlight thethe contributions,
contributions, limitations,
limitations, andand recommendations
recommendations of of
thethe research.
research.

Figure 1. Research method.

Figure 1. Research method.
3.2. Pilot Case Study
3.2. Pilot Case Study
This research was carried out using a qualitative research approach based on multiple case studies.
ThisThis research was
exploratory carried
approach out using a for
is appropriate qualitative research
investigating approach based
a phenomenon on multiple
in its current case
state [40,41].
studies. This exploratory approach is appropriate for investigating a phenomenon in its current state
The unit of analysis selected for the purpose of this research is a process and, more specifically, the
[40,41]. The unit of analysis selected for the purpose of this research is a process and, more
specifically, the process of design of a green building project. Researchers chose a pilot case study
project to shape the draft of the research method in view of the development of the project and the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 4 of 16

process of design of a green building project. Researchers chose a pilot case study project to shape the
draft of the research method in view of the development of the project and the outcomes obtained.
The two main outputs of the pilot case study are the identification of the variables and the design of
the research protocol [41]. The pilot project was also chosen purposively considering the availability
of information and the scenario required for the development of the research [40,41]. Using the first
project as a pilot case study, researchers aimed to consider the majority of possible variables. The case
study had to be a worst-case scenario for the development of a protocol that could be valid for case
studies similar to the original.
In this case, the worst-case scenario was a fragmented process developed within the European
Union using one of the two referenced standards. The project of a new school complex in Italy, certified
under the LEED standard [31], was chosen as the pilot case study project. This project involved a
very fragmented design process developed by various stakeholders through the Design-Bid-Build
procedure. This pilot case study considered three dependent variables: Time, cost, and sustainability.
These three variables were chosen on the basis of the information collected throughout the pilot case
study analysis (outcomes of interviews and documentation), as well as the literature review: Time [18],
cost [18], and sustainability [9].
The process implemented for developing the pilot case study was sorted out by activities referred
to as specific project-related jobs or events. Occasionally, researchers identified one or more project
issues associated with some of these activities. Issues were identified using the concept of “waste,” as
defined by the lean approach [42]: Any type of activity performed during the production process that,
in spite of consuming resources, does not bring added value to the final product. Out of the seven
types of waste defined for a typical lean process [42,43], researchers identified five applicable to the
scope of this study: (1) Waiting (delays in the process), (2) movement of people, (3) extra-processing
(re-manufacturing and activity reiteration), (4) costs (unforeseen expenses for project-related activities),
and (5) defects (intended as project weaknesses that did not allow the team to reach the expected
level of sustainability within the LEED or BREEAM certification). Only those types of waste that
could be directly associated with project management jobs or events were taken into account. Lean
construction literature usually considers two additional types of waste: Transportation of materials
and inventory [42,43]. However, because of the empirical design phase focus of this study, no waste
production activity was identified for these two types of waste and, therefore, they were not considered
in this research.
Waste-related issues are the symptoms of project management challenges the authors were
interested in [16,44,45]. Therefore, the ones initially identified during the case study were labeled and
gathered in several categories of issues. The identification of such categories of issues during the pilot
case study determined the independent variables of the present research:

A. Lack integration between the technicians involved;

B. Misunderstanding of Commissioning Authority’s tasks and processes;
C. Lack of appropriate clauses in bid documentation;
D. Systematic cuts to budget due to change orders and delays;
E. Misunderstanding of the energy modeling role and processes in the building.

As stated previously, the protocol was one of the main outputs of the pilot case study. This
protocol considered the research goals, the procedures to deal with the data (sources of data, access
to design teams, data collection, confidentiality forms, and interviews) [41,46,47]. According to the
protocol, the general manager, design project manager, and three key members of the design team
should be interviewed following this protocol.

3.3. Selection of other Case Studies and Data Collection

To select the case studies, researchers should be sufficiently familiar with the study domain to
understand the main concepts that are relevant to the study [40,41]. Moreover, researchers should be
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 5 of 16

able to interpret the information in real-time and adjust their data collection activities accordingly to
suit the case study. Therefore, case studies selected had to fulfill these six requirements:

• Newly developed for tertiary-sector activities;

• Budget ranging between 5 and 15 million Euros;
• Footprint ranging between 2000 and 10,000 m2 ;
• Under certification by LEED or BREEAM;
• Comply with European Union directives;
• Accessibility to the stakeholders involved in the design phase.

The last requirement was key in order to make the research feasible. Researchers needed to
identify the different stakeholders involved in each case study, as well as to communicate with them
directly. Design processes had to be tracked down from the viewpoint of time (delays), cost (direct
and indirect), and level of sustainability. Each case study had to be analyzed from the perspective of
each of the three dependent variables and, therefore, information related to each variable had to be
available, well-defined, and trackable throughout the whole process.
Considering those six requirements, the chosen case studies were the following:

1. School complex located in Trento (Italy), certified by LEED [31], with a total budget of
approximately 13.2 Million Euros and a total gross footprint of 6000 m2 . This was the pilot
case study;
2. Nursing home complex located in Volano (Italy), certified by LEED [31], with a total budget of
approximately 11.0 million Euros and a total gross footprint of 5965 m2 ;
3. Office building located in Barcelona (Spain), certified by LEED [31], with a total budget of
approximately 7.5 million Euros and a total gross square footprint of 3000 m2 ;
4. Office building located in Alicante (Spain), certified by BREEAM [32], with a total budget of
approximately 14.0 million Euros and a total gross square footprint of 5885 m2 .

This last case study (#4) was the only one delivered using the Design-Build approach. The other
three were delivered under the traditional method (Design-Bid-Build).

3.4. Case Study Analysis

Processes and activities implemented for project data collection were standardized during
the development of the pilot case study protocol. Information proceeded from two main sources:
Documentation [40] and interviews [46]. For both cases, the extrapolation of the required information
followed the protocol, which was determined and verified during the pilot case study. Project
management practices and specific software were implemented in different case studies. Documentation
and interviews were standardized, and scheduling and estimating techniques were implemented,
which allowed researchers to repeat the process for each case study [28,48]. Sustainability-related
information and results were calculated on the basis of the green building reference standards used for
each building certification process [31,32].
Dependent variables identified time, cost, and sustainability. Independent variables refer to the
project issues, identified using the concept of waste. For each dependent variable, the total impact “I”
of all “i” project issues were estimated as the sum of the impact of a specific independent variable on
all the activities considered (see Equations (1), (2), and (3)).
Xn Xn Xn Xn Xn
Id = iAn(d) + iBn(d) + iCn(d) + iDn(d) + i , (1)
1 1 1 1 1 En(d)
Xn Xn Xn Xn Xn
I€ = iAn(€) + iBn(€) + iCn(€) + iDn(€) + i , (2)
1 1 1 1 1 En(€)
Xn Xn Xn Xn Xn
IS = i + i + i + i + i , (3)
1 An(S) 1 Bn(S) 1 Cn(S) 1 Dn(S) 1 En(S)
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 6 of 16

where “I” represents the impact of all different “i” issues interfering in different “n” activities of each
“A” to “E” waste category, for dimensions of time “d”, costs “€” and sustainability “S”.
This research protocol was based on the pilot case study, and they followed an iterative process [49].
For each project-related decision, such as the selection of variables or data collection, researchers
would first decide on a technique, then implement it in the field, later correcting any mistakes or errors
and, finally, re-implement the protocol until obtaining acceptable results. With the term “acceptable,”
researchers intended a result upon which all subjects involved would agree. If some data, information,
or number could not be approved by all subjects, the process was adjusted and re-proposed [40].
The results of the correlation between independent and dependent variables were summarized in
three different tables (one for each dependent variable) for each case study. The numbers resulting from
the calculations of the different variable related activities were then turned into percentages related to
the total of each dependent variable: Time, cost, and sustainability variances. As described later in
more detail, the units of measurement considered for each of the three dependent variables were:

• Working days for the time variance: Considered as the additional working days of delay for the
completion of critical and non-critical activities caused by project management issues;
• Euros for the cost variance: Considered as the extra costs paid by the owner and by all stakeholders
involved caused by project management issues;
• LEED or BREEAM points for the sustainability variance: Considered as the unsuccessful
achievement of the original green building score expected at the beginning of the project due to
project management issues.

Furthermore, the protocol developed during the pilot case study project was verified by the
researchers through two different techniques: Interviews [46] and previous research [41]. Interviews
helped with the subjects directly involved in the process and unanimously demonstrated the validity
of the results. All interviewees agreed upon the plausibility of the results, both from qualitative and
quantitative points of view. They agreed on the types of issues and on the causes that determined
them, quantitatively, because the research results in terms of numbers coincided in order of size, with
their expectations.
Following [41], this study was developed considering the cross-case analysis approach based on
the implementation of a specific theory. As stated previously, the unit of analysis of this research is the
process of design of a green building project. The comparative process of the case studies implemented
for this research was based on replication logic, under which each case had to be selected to predict
similar results.

3.5. Cross-Case Study

In addition to the general strategies described above, two other techniques were also implemented
to analyze the case study evidence: Explanation building and cross-case analysis [41]. Explanation
building focuses on analyzing the case study data by building an explanation. In this context, the
researchers focused on developing a set of causal links on how or why something happened [40]. The
process was iterative and involved the use of initial predictions and their comparison against the case
study evidence [47]. Then, based on any variances, the initial predictions were revised and compared
against additional evidence. This process was repeated until a satisfactory match was obtained for
different aspects of the present research [40,41]. The process was considered to be satisfactory when all
subjects involved agreed upon the results obtained.
Evidence proves that case studies that implement both direct-case and cross-case analyses are
more effective at generating theoretical frameworks and formal propositions than studies using only
one of the two approaches [50]. On the basis of these concepts, researchers focused on developing a
direct approach through the use of one pilot case study and corroborating it afterward using cross-case
analysis with the other case study projects. For such goals, the researchers first implemented the
variables (dependent and independent) found for the pilot case study, then adjusted them depending on
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 7 of 16

the results obtained from the other case studies [51]. In this stage of the research process, the comparison
between cases also focused on the different levels of project delivery integration: Design-Bid-Build
vs. Design-Build contracts. Furthermore, researchers referred to the LEED and BREEAM protocols
only as standardized definitions of sustainability, and not as absolute evaluation methods for building
sustainability. The fact of referring to common reference standards throughout different projects
Sustainability
allowed 2020, 12,
having a xcommon
FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16evaluating
baseline for defining the concept of sustainability and, therefore,
all projects using the same metrics.
standards throughout different projects allowed having a common baseline for defining the concept
of sustainability and, therefore, evaluating all projects using the same metrics.
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Case Study Analysis
4.1. Case Studywere
Results Analysis
grouped into three dependent variables: Time, cost, and sustainability. The
total amount
Results wereof time lost due
grouped to sustainability-related
into three dependent variables: Time, problems were
cost, and estimated on
sustainability. Thethe basis of the
total
bar-chart
amount ofschedule
time lostresults
due to developed using theproblems
sustainability-related software, wereMicrosoft
estimated Project.
on the Within
basis of the
the bar-chart,
bar-chart schedule results
sustainability-related developed
problems using the identified
previously software, Microsoft Project. Within
by the researchers werethecounted
bar-chart,as normal
activities with predecessors and successors, and their duration was estimated on the normal
sustainability-related problems previously identified by the researchers were counted as basis of the data
activities with predecessors and successors, and their duration was estimated on the basis of the data
previously collected through project documentation and interviews. Different colors were used to
previously collected through project documentation and interviews. Different colors were used to
classify normal activities (blue), sustainability-related activities (green), sustainability-related problems
classify normal activities (blue), sustainability-related activities (green), sustainability-related
(red), project-management-related
problems (red), project-management-relatedproblems (orange),
problems and and
(orange), project-management-related
project-management-related activities
(yellow). Not all Not
activities (yellow). project activities
all project were
activities considered
were consideredfor forthe
the purpose
purpose ofofthethe present
present research, only
research,
sustainability-related activities
only sustainability-related and
activities andproject
projectmilestones.
milestones.
A
A critical pathwas
critical path wasthenthen calculated
calculated on basis
on the the basis
of theofscheduling
the scheduling and management
and project project management
concepts [18], along with the free-float and total-float of each activity.
concepts [18], along with the free-float and total-float of each activity. The duration The duration of all of all
sustainability-related problems included on the project’s critical path accounted for the
sustainability-related problems included on the project’s critical path accounted for the total project total project
delay. The duration of all sustainability-related problems of the whole project bar-chart accounted
delay. The duration of all sustainability-related problems of the whole project bar-chart accounted for
for the total loss of time, as represented in Figure 2.
the total loss of time, as represented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Gantt chart showing sustainability-related problems (red), project-management-related problems

Figure 2. Gantt chart showing sustainability-related problems (red), project-management-related
(orange), sustainability-related activities (green), and project management-related activities (yellow).
problems (orange), sustainability-related activities (green), and project management-related activities
(yellow).
Cost analysis was divided into two categories: Direct and indirect costs. The term “direct costs”
identifies all expenses caused by the sustainability-related challenges that the owner had to bear in
Cost to
addition analysis was divided
the original into two
project budget categories:
to complete the Direct
design and indirect
process. The costs. The term
term “indirect “direct costs”
costs”
identifies all expenses caused by the sustainability-related challenges that the owner had to bear in
identifies two types of costs: (1) Additional costs caused by sustainability-related problems that
technicians
addition involved
to the originalin the project
project had to
budget tobear with no
complete additional
the compensation
design process. The term to their professional
“indirect costs” identifies
fee for developing the expected product, and (2) additional
two types of costs: (1) Additional costs caused by sustainability-related problems costs caused by the effects
that of
technicians
sustainability-related problems, which affected third parties and later, project development phases.
involved in the project had to bear with no additional compensation to their professional fee for
All costs were estimated in Euros, either through interviews or project documents.
Results for sustainability-related points were estimated on the basis of green building standards
and taking the whole possible score identified at the beginning of the project as a reference. The
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 8 of 16

developing the expected product, and (2) additional costs caused by the effects of sustainability-related
problems, which affected third parties and later, project development phases. All costs were estimated
in Euros, either through interviews or project documents.
Results for sustainability-related points were estimated on the basis of green building standards
and taking the whole possible score identified at the beginning of the project as a reference. The
researchers focused on all LEED or BREEAM points that finally could not be achieved due to project
management issues related with sustainability (categories A to E cited above). Before starting the
design phase, the project team estimated a possible score, filling up a preliminary checklist, including
the design and construction stages. During the design stage, the project team realized that not all
credits could be fulfilled, some of them due to proper project features and others due to project
management related issues. The results for each case study (#1, #2, #3, and #4) are summarized in
Tables 1–4, respectively.

Table 1. Results of case study #1 (school complex)

No Appropriate Reduction
Lack of Commissioning Energy
Clauses in Bid of Project TOTAL %
Integration Authority Tasks Modelling
Documentation Budget
Additional Time
9 5 128 23 0 165 30.0
(Working Days)
Indirect Additional
500 0 500 4500 4500 10,000 4.2
Costs (€)
Direct Additional
8000 14,000 18,000 6000 8000 54,000 22.4
Costs (€)
Green Value (LEED
1 1 0 3 5 10 11.8
points)

Table 2. Results of case study #2 (nursing-home project)

No appropriate Reduction
Lack of Commissioning Energy
Clauses in Bid of Project TOTAL %
Integration Authority Tasks Modeling
Documentation Budget
Additional Time
37 39 18 40 41 175 29.2
(Working Days)
Indirect Additional
5730 500 1700 4400 10,500 22,830 8.3
Costs (€)
Direct Additional
0 38,000 35,000 5000 0 78,000 28.3
Costs (€)
Green Value (LEED
2 1 0 4 7 14 16.3
points)

Table 3. Results of case study #3 (office building in Barcelona)

No appropriate Reduction
Lack of Commissioning Energy
Clauses in Bid of Project TOTAL %
Integration Authority Tasks Modeling
Documentation Budget
Additional Time
1 6 0 6 10 23 4.9
(Working Days)
Indirect Additional
2300 600 0 300 0 3200 6.7
Costs (€)
Direct Additional
7500 2500 1500 9000 5100 25,600 53.4
Costs (€)
Green Value (LEED
0 0 1 0 2 3 3.6
points)
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 9 of 16

Table 4. Results of case study #4 (office building in Alicante)

No appropriate Reduction
Lack of Commissioning Energy Other
Clauses in Bid of Project TOTAL %
Integration Authority Tasks Modeling Non-Related
Documentation Budget
Additional
Time (Working 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Days)
Indirect
Additional 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Costs (€)
Direct
Additional 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Costs (€)
Green Value
0 0 0 0 0 −4 −4 −4.7
(LEED points)

Categories of project waste (independent variables) occurred during the design process and may
be linked to time, direct costs, indirect costs, and green building values (dependent variables). The
tables highlight the project factors that caused project wastes or losses (not gains), in terms of time,
cost, and sustainability. In case #4, no waste in the project was detected, thus, the zeros in Table 4.
However, it instead gained sustainability points throughout the process. According to the technicians
and other stakeholders involved in the process, this gain was unexpected and could not be related to
any variable considered for the development of this study. Considering that Tables 1–4 display the
“waste” of each dependent variable, as stated previously, gaining four BREEAM points of sustainability
must be represented as a negative result in Table 4. Hence, they have been introduced in the Table as
an “other non-related” variable.
Waste-related issues identified (independent variables) are:

• Lack of integration between the technicians involved and bad-timing for green building activities:
The project design team was formed by veteran technicians accustomed to developing the project
following the development process ruled by the Italian legislation, already based on EU regulations.
LEED imposed the overlap of project activities through a more integrated process, generating
problems between technicians [1,26], as everyone had to participate in each other’s part of the
project. This fact, along with other misunderstandings, generated friction between the participants
involved, slowing down the whole design process [19,29], and threatening the achievement of the
LEED credits.
• Misunderstanding of Commissioning Authority’s activities and process: The Commissioning
Authority is, in brief, a consultant hired by the owner, responsible for ensuring that the design
and construction of the mechanical components comply with the owner’s requirements and
expectations [3]. The design team leader did not bring in the Commissioning Authority until
the very last phases of the design. Thus, the design was not exposed to the analysis of the
Commissioning Authority until the end of the design, when all shop drawings, estimates, bid
specifications, and related documents had already been approved and closed. Within the European
system, project-related documents, estimates, and specifications are developed by designers, not
by general contractors. To avoid change orders during the construction phase, the Commissioning
Authority should always be hired during the design process. This did not happen in the nursing
home project (#2) where, for example, the Commissioning Authority could not insert proper
clauses for the activities that had to be performed during the construction stage, causing an
estimated extra cost of 30,000 Euros during the construction phase.
• No appropriate clauses in bid documentation: Poor bid clauses refer to sustainability-related
issues that were detected in some case studies. Because of the owner’s inexperience or technician’s
misunderstanding, not all aspects of sustainability were properly assessed during bid clause
formulation [1,24]. For example, in one case, the clauses related to the production of LEED
documentation were not considered, which led to an additional cost of 30,000 Euros claimed by
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 10 of 16

the design company (case #2). In case #1, the development of inexact clauses, such as the reference
to the wrong standard, led to the redefinition of the whole bid documentation, with an added cost
of 5000 Euros for consulting services and bureaucracy.
• Systematic cuts to budget due to change orders and delays: The more delays that affect the design
phase, the higher the costs of material, labor, and equipment increase, and, consequently, the
shorter the budget becomes. As a result, for projects suffering severe delays at each design step,
the team had to apply cuts and re-define the original design, which also affected the green building
points of the project [23].
• Misunderstanding of the energy modeling role and process: As for the Commissioning Authority,
technicians did not quite understand the importance and the development process of the energy
modeling until the final design phases [10]. In some cases (#1 and #2), energy modeling was
not considered in the initial bid clauses due to the owner’s decision, thus, no one was formally
appointed as Energy Modeler when the contract was signed. Mechanical engineers took over the
task during the design phase, but they did not have experience in developing energy modeling
for LEED. By the end of the final design stage, technicians realized they were not able to do
it. An external professional Energy Modeler was contracted by the engineering firm with an
additional cost of 10,000 Euros. However, by the time the simulation was ready, the final design
had already been approved, along with the project estimate, and the construction bid had already
been published. The energy simulation did not match the expected results [10]. However, no
changes could be made as the project had already been approved and bid out. This problem, apart
from generating extra costs during the design process, avoided the achievement of several points
under the energy-efficiency credit.

4.2. Cross-Case Analysis

After completing the analysis on the different case studies, the research team focused on comparing
the results obtained, separating the analysis for each dependent variable (time, cost, and sustainability),
as suggested by [41]. Each of them is analyzed in the following paragraphs.

4.2.1. First Dependent Variable: Time

From the time variance perspective, there is a substantial difference between the first two case
studies (#1 and #2) and the other two (#3 and #4). While the school (#1) and the nursing home (#2)
projects suffered a delay of almost 30%, both office buildings (#3 and #4) were completed with a
delay of less than 5%. According to the results and information retrieved through the interviews
and document analysis, the cause of this problem was the process fragmentation, as defined under
the lean approach [42,43,52]. Each subject would interact with the other ones occasionally on a
random-schedule basis when a problem occurred. Therefore, the process integration was done on the
basis of an interventionist, not a prevention procedure.
The scheduling was developed at the beginning of the work by technicians, and it was later
validated by the owner. However, it was neither accurate nor detailed [17,48]. As a result, the planning
tasks related to several activities that remained uncovered. The process that appeared to be fluent
presented several gaps, which remained hidden during the design phase [17,23]. Thus, such problems
that may be solved without difficulties became hidden problems that would eventually come to the
surface by the time they needed to be solved, turning activities from important to urgent [15]. This
would suddenly drain resources and, consequently, impact the entire schedule.
One key difference between the first two case studies (#1 and #2) and the other two (#3 and #4)
was the perception of the importance of time. According to the information retrieved during the case
analysis, in different case studies, the participants involved, along with the owner, gave different
priority to the time variable. Out of the three dependent variables identified by the researchers, not
all of them had the same importance throughout the process. In many cases, the owner had to solve
problems by managing time, cost, and sustainability. The first two cases (#1 and #2) were publicly
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 11 of 16

funded. Hence, the time and sustainability variables were often sacrificed to the benefit of the cost
variable [22,25]. Moreover, in such cases, often the time variable appeared to be considered as the least
important of the three. On more than one occasion, during the school (#1) and the nursing home (#2)
projects, the decision-making process for the issue of missing a sustainability-related activity/service,
was solved choosing one of these alternatives: (a) Adding more resources and, therefore, increasing
costs (schedule-crashing), (b) avoiding the sustainability-related benefit, and (c) providing the missing
service and delaying other activities.
Most of the time, the last option was chosen. The lack of importance given to the time variable is
demonstrated by the delays suffered during the completion of the first two case studies (#1 and #2).
Each of them experienced a delay between 165 and 175 working days only for sustainability-related
activities. This fact alone highlights the propensity of project owners to sacrifice the time variable
to the optimization of the variable related to sustainability. This fact shows a specific hierarchy for
the first two public-owned projects, in which the project budget could not be varied, and therefore,
remains the first priority. Sustainability may be varied, but if the problem can be solved by adding
time, the owner would rather wait. Thus, the hierarchy of dependent variables for the first two projects
is the following: (1) Cost, (2) sustainability, and (3) time.
In contrast, according to the information retrieved, for the other two projects analyzed (#3 and
#4), time was a major issue. Stakeholders interviewed for these cases declared that the schedule
deadline was included as a major contractual clause from the beginning of the design phase and,
therefore, any delay would be considered as an exception, almost the same way as a contractual breach.
This different perception of the importance of time within the process development, as well as the
different management associated with it, led the projects to have different delays both from the variance
perspective, as well as in absolute value. The first two projects registered a delay between 29.2% and
30.5% in terms of variance. However, the private-owned projects suffered a delay ranging from 0.0% to
4.9%.

4.2.2. Second Dependent Variable: Cost

The cost variance also registered substantial differences from case to case. The only project that
suffered a substantially lower cost increment was the one developed in southern Spain (#4) through the
Design-Build procedure. Results do not demonstrate a linear relationship between the magnitude of
the cost variance and the magnitude of the project budget. Therefore, the research highlights the lack
of linearity between the level of integration and cost variance when applying the Design-Bid-Build
system. In other words, this study does not indicate that a better level of integration within the
Design-Bid-Build system, as reported for case study #3, which necessarily leads to a lower cost variance
in terms of percentages.
A different perspective has to be implemented for the Design-Build process (case study #4), in
which the cost variance result was zero. This project is the only one that was completed on time and
under budget. Therefore, regarding the cost-independent variable, it was concluded that:

• The level of integration within a Design-Bid-Build process affects the cost variance of the design
phase from a non-linear perspective;
• For a Design-Bid-Build process, the cost variance results are lower in terms of absolute values for
projects implementing a higher level of integration;
• For a Design-Bid-Build process, the cost variance results are higher in terms of percentages for
small projects even when implementing a higher level of integration;
• For a Design-Build process, the cost variance resulted to be zero.

Notably, in terms of absolute values, the projects that suffered the greatest cost variance were
the ones in which the variable “cost” was the most important of the three [22,25]. As already cited
above for the time variance, each project owner had a different order of priorities for each of the three
dependent variables. For the school (#1) and the nursing home (#2) projects, the most important
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 12 of 16

variable was always the “cost”, mainly because, as explained, it depended on public funding, which
had already been approved and could not be changed. However, these projects also had “time” as the
least important variable and, according to this analysis, these two variables are heavily related to one
another. Most of the issues that generated the cost variance depended on delays, which imposed change
orders, project re-manufacturing tasks, and other expensive activities [48]. Therefore, it is important
to note that cost variance and time variance depend on each other. From a project management
perspective, as well as during the design phase of a green building project, time is money.

4.2.3. Third Dependent Variable: Sustainability

For all projects developed under the Design-Bid-Build process (#1, #2, and #3), project sustainability
was never considered a priority. Even when in multiple interviews, where owners and technicians
committed to sustainability, this was often put aside when cost-related problems arose. Out of these
three, none of the project budgets was ever modified for a sustainability-related problem, and this had
severe consequences on the final level of the sustainability of the project. According to [9], a key aspect
of the delivery of high-performance and sustainable building is the process integration and the focus
on sustainability as a primary requirement, second to no others. This was fulfilled only for case study
#4 and, according to the gathered information, it may depend on a different perception of the project.
All projects analyzed for the purpose of this study had to adjust the procedure to the new project
conditions or requirements, which was determined by various factors. However, the research team
noticed a substantial difference between the way this procedure was developed in the last project
(#4) versus the other three. For the BREEAM score upgrade, the design team implemented the
so-called “schedule-crashing” practice [53], under which, having a greater amount of work with a
fixed deadline, the company decides to put more money into the project and accelerate the process
when possible. In the other projects, the system was more a push system, where the completion of
activities was scheduled at the time they were about to start, not before [47,48]. For example, in case
study #2 the owner would wait for the response of the Water Resources Department before scheduling
other activities. No master scheduling plan was implemented. Moreover, for sustainability, there
was no effort to prevent problems, but to solve them as they came. The results obtained highlight
the strong relationship between project management and project sustainability. Not only do the
sustainability-related activities have a substantial impact on the project management process, but also
the way the project management process is performed. In other words, a poorly planned process for
the achievement of the various green building features of the project would cause an impact on the
project costs and schedule. However, alternatively, a poorly managed project would also negatively
impact its green building features.
It is important to note that, for the purposes of this work, the research team did not consider the
final LEED or BREEAM certification achieved by each building, only the level of sustainability itself.
In other words, both standards were implemented as tools to quantify the concept of sustainability for
buildings. Therefore, the results of the present study focus on how much sustainability a building
could lose regardless of the level of green building standard achieved. Nevertheless, the loss of
sustainability points suffered by the school (#1) and the nursing home (#2) projects was so significant
that it determined a lower rating on both final building certifications.

4.2.4. Cross-Case Analysis: General Considerations

The Design-Bid-Build projects (#1, #2, and #3) were affected by processes not leveled and lacked
integration. All the case studies analyzed for the purpose of this research and that suffered the most
severe issues for all three dependent variables were developed through the Design-Bid-Build process
and presented, as primary causes, a lack of integration between technicians and the poor organization
of the process-leveling activities. The only project developed through the Design-Build procedure that
did not suffer any of the problems experienced in the other case studies. This highlights the potential
improvement of process integration through the implementation of the Design-Build method [24].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 13 of 16

On the other hand, the project manager takes responsibility for all project activities, including
the sustainability-related ones. Many potential issues of the projects analyzed were prevented by the
correct behavior of the project manager, who could manage both technical and sustainability-related
activities. This highlights the importance of integration, not only from the viewpoint of physical
workspaces and/or procedures, but also from a knowledge perspective [39,47,52]. According to the
information retrieved by interviewees, the success of delivering an integrated design process also
depended on the capability of preventing mistakes and each subject specializing in one particular
construction field. Often each subject did not realize the presence of a mistake until another technician
came in. The presence of one subject supervising the process with a multi-disciplinary knowledge
avoided many potential issues.
Furthermore, process integration and interdisciplinary roles play a key role for the whole process
optimization. All subjects involved in the process should blend in the team in early phases, and
project issues should be brought to the attention of all technicians in order to have a multi-disciplinary
problem-solving procedure. This concept, which strongly reflects a more integrated project delivery
approach, should interest all main project activities, such as scheduling, estimating, management,
engineering, and sustainability.

5. Conclusions
Implementation of Anglo-American protocols, such as BREAAM or LEED, within the European
reality, arise project management issues during the project design phase. These issues are generally
linked to variables such as time, costs, and green building values. This research has highlighted four
main problems that affect the design process:

• Green building activities overlap with regular project management activities, generally with bad
timing. This causes misunderstanding between technicians, and it reflects a lack of integration of
the design team;
• Change orders and delays cause systematic cuts to budget due and re-definition of the original
design, affecting the green building points of the project too;
• There is a lack of appropriate clauses regarding sustainability in bid documentation. This often
leads to the redefinition of the documents, adding cost due to consulting services and bureaucracy;
• Key stakeholders are hired very late in the process. The main examples are the Energy
Modeler and the Commissioning Authority. Thus, verification that the energy model and
the mechanical components comply with the owner’s requirements cannot be done properly
during the design phase.

Therefore, on the one hand, a poorly planned process for the achievement of the various green
building features of the project could impact the project schedule and the budget. On the other hand, a
poorly managed project could also negatively impact its green building features.
Furthermore, another important contribution of this research is that it identifies a positive
relationship between process integration and implementation of sustainability through well-recognized
standards such as LEED or BREEAM in the development of green building projects. Integration
can be understood as physical integration, where all stakeholders interact first-hand with each other
and are directly exposed to potential issues. It can also be understood as timely integration, where
stakeholders interact on a frequent basis and solve the problems as they arise. This concept of
integration in relationship with the development of green building projects has a great potential impact
on business. As building developments become more and more international, the green building
reference standards are growing as a global benchmark for establishing the quality of buildings. For
such international projects, this research demonstrates the importance of process integration, which
could possibly prevent some major problems that may occur if conditions similar to the case studies
are replicated. The relationship between process integration and optimization of sustainability features
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 14 of 16

in green building developments serves as guidance for international projects developed through a
highly fragmented process.
The case study analysis focuses on the comparison of projects developed through the two main
procedures currently available worldwide, the Design-Bid-Build and the Design-Build. Several
studies have already demonstrated the benefits of the Design-Build versus the Design-Bid-Build
approach for general project management purposes due to its higher level of integration. This
research demonstrates the positive relationship between process integration and green building
design development. Therefore, on the basis of the literature review and of the results obtained,
this research also establishes that the Design-Build approach is a more suitable procedure for green
building developments.
This research, being exploratory, has several limitations regarding the analysis of time, cost, and
sustainability. Estimating the delay of single activities was sometimes difficult and ambiguous as it
depended on other activities. By matching data coming from interviews and project documentation,
the authors determined the duration, floats, predecessors, and successors of each activity. However,
in some cases, the bureaucratic and management processes were so complicated that none of the
stakeholders involved knew what each activity depended on. The reason for this was the lack of
integration and coordination of the process. Therefore, for the purpose of this research, activities with
undefined scheduling features were not considered individually, but as part of groups of activities
(milestones) whose start and end points could be determined univocally.
Future research studies may include more detailed analysis for estimating time and cost.
Furthermore, to validate the results obtained, future research should be carried out on the basis
of other standards than LEED and BREEAM. Additional studies may also consider extending the
research to other European Union countries where construction culture and design and construction
processes may be different from Italy and Spain. Different project and owner types could also be taken
into consideration. Finally, a generalizable survey instrument could be generated to check the level of
project delivery integration in green buildings.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.O. and I.G.-G.; methodology, A.O. and E.P.; investigation, A.O.;
resources, A.O.; data curation, I.G.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.O. and I.G.-G.; writing—review and
editing, E.P.; supervision, E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors want to thank the companies and public agencies that provided access to data
collection for this study, as well as all the participants in the research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Marcelino-Sádaba, S.; González-Jaén, L.F.; Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. Using project management as a way to
sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 99, 1–16.
[CrossRef]
2. Sierra, L.A.; Yepes, V.; Pellicer, E. A review of multi-criteria assessment of the social sustainability of
infrastructures. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 496–513. [CrossRef]
3. Wu, P.; Low, S.P. Project management and green buildings: Lessons from the rating systems. J. Prof. Issues
Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010, 136, 64–70. [CrossRef]
4. Illankoon, I.C.S.; Tam, V.W.; Le, K.N.; Shen, L. Key credit criteria among international green building rating
tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 209–220. [CrossRef]
5. Lu, Y.; Wu, Z.; Chang, R.; Li, Y. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for green buildings: A critical review
and future directions. Autom. Constr. 2017, 83, 134–148. [CrossRef]
6. Zavadskas, E.; Antucheviciene, J.; Vilutiene, T.; Adeli, H. Sustainable decision-making in civil engineering,
construction and building technology. Sustainability 2018, 10, 14. [CrossRef]
7. Venkataraman, V.; Cheng, J.C. Critical success and failure factors for managing green building projects. J.
Archit. Eng. 2018, 24, 04018025. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 15 of 16

8. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.; Huo, X.; Owusu-Manu, D.G. A scientometric analysis and visualization of global
green building research. Build. Environ. 2019, 149, 501–511. [CrossRef]
9. Horman, M.J.; Riley, D.R.; Lapinski, A.R.; Korkmaz, S.; Pulaski, M.H.; Magent, C.S.; Luo, Y.; Harding, N.;
Dahl, P.K. Delivering green buildings: Process improvements for sustainable construction. J. Green Build.
2006, 1, 123–140. [CrossRef]
10. Gerrish, T.; Ruikar, K.; Cook, M.; Johnson, M.; Phillip, M.; Lowry, C. BIM application to building energy
performance visualisation and management: Challenges and potential. Energy Build. 2017, 144, 218–228.
[CrossRef]
11. Robichaud, L.B.; Anantatmula, V.S. Greening project management practices for sustainable construction. J.
Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 48–57. [CrossRef]
12. Wong, J.K.W.; Zhou, J. Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM:
A review. Autom. Constr. 2015, 57, 156–165. [CrossRef]
13. Sertyesilisik, B. Lean and agile construction project management: As a way of reducing environmental
footprint of the construction industry. In Optimization and Control Methods in Industrial Engineering and
Construction. Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering; Xu, H., Wang, X., Eds.;
Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 72, pp. 179–196.
14. Lapinski, A.R.; Horman, M.J.; Riley, D.R. Lean processes for sustainable project delivery. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 2006, 132, 1083–1091. [CrossRef]
15. Riley, D.R.; Grommes, A.V.; Thatcher, C.E. Teaching sustainability in building design and engineering. J.
Green Build. 2007, 2, 175–195. [CrossRef]
16. Fercoq, A.; Lamouri, S.; Carbone, V. Lean/Green integration focused on waste reduction techniques. J. Clean.
Prod. 2016, 137, 567–578. [CrossRef]
17. Hwang, B.G.; Zhu, L.; Ming, J.T.T. Factors affecting productivity in green building construction projects: The
case of Singapore. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04016052. [CrossRef]
18. PMI. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 6th ed.; Project Management
Institute: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2017.
19. Zhao, X.; Hwang, B.G.; Lee, H.N. Identifying critical leadership styles of project managers for green building
projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2016, 16, 150–160. [CrossRef]
20. Sang, P.; Liu, J.; Zhang, L.; Zheng, L.; Yao, H.; Wang, Y. Effects of project manager competency on green
construction performance: The Chinese context. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3406. [CrossRef]
21. Wu, W.; Issa, R.R. BIM execution planning in green building projects: LEED as a use case. J. Manag. Eng.
2014, 31, A4014007. [CrossRef]
22. Weerasinghe, A.S.; Ramachandra, T. Economic sustainability of green buildings: A comparative analysis of
green vs non-green. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2018, 8, 528–543. [CrossRef]
23. Hwang, B.G.; Zhao, X.; Tan, L.L.G. Green building projects: Schedule performance, influential factors and
solutions. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2015, 22, 327–346. [CrossRef]
24. Molenaar, K.R.; Sobin, N.; Antillón, E.I. A synthesis of best-value procurement practices for sustainable
design-build projects in the public sector. J. Green Build. 2010, 5, 148–157. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Shen, L. Embedding “green” in project-based organizations: The way ahead in the
construction industry? J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 420–427. [CrossRef]
26. Azari, R.; Kim, Y.W. Integration evaluation framework for integrated design teams of green buildings:
Development and validation. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 32, 04015053. [CrossRef]
27. Korkmaz, S.; Messner, J.I.; Riley, D.R.; Magent, C. High-performance green building design process modeling
and integrated use of visualization tools. J. Archit. Eng. 2010, 16, 37–45. [CrossRef]
28. Russell-Smith, S.V.; Lepech, M.D.; Fruchter, R.; Littman, A. Impact of progressive sustainable target value
assessment on building design decisions. Build. Environ. 2015, 85, 52–60. [CrossRef]
29. Knotten, V.; Lædre, O.; Hansen, G.K. Building design management–key success factors. Archit. Eng. Des.
Manag. 2017, 13, 479–493. [CrossRef]
30. Doan, D.T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Zhang, T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J. A critical
comparison of green building rating systems. Build. Environ. 2017, 123, 243–260. [CrossRef]
31. LEED. LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction; United States Green Building Council
Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
32. BREEAM. BREEAM International New Construction; BRE Global Ltd.: Wtford, UK, 2016.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2276 16 of 16

33. Dahlmann, F.; Veal, G. The role of umbrella agreements in achieving sustainability goals: Energy efficiency
at the Empire State building. J. Green Build. 2016, 11, 71–94. [CrossRef]
34. Guy, S.; Moore, S.A. Sustainable Architectures: Critical Explorations of Green Building Practice in Europe and North
America; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
35. Winch, G. Managing Construction Projects, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Oxford, UK, 2010.
36. Rubio, M.C.; Martinez, G.; Rubio, J.C.; Ordoñez, J. Role of the civil engineer as a coordinator of safety and
health matters within the construction sector. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2008, 134, 152–157. [CrossRef]
37. Pellicer, E.; Yepes, V.; Teixeira, J.C.; Moura, H.; Catalá, J. Construction Management; Wiley: Oxford, UK, 2014.
38. Pellicer, E.; Victory, R. Implementation of project management principles in Spanish residential developments.
Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2006, 10, 233–248. [CrossRef]
39. Pellicer, E.; Sanz, M.A.; Esmaeili, B.; Molenaar, K.R. Exploration of team integration in Spanish multifamily
residential building construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 05016012. [CrossRef]
40. Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook; Sage Pub.: New
York, NY, USA, 2013.
41. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage Pub.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013.
42. Liker, J. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer; McGraw Hill: New
York, NY, USA, 2004.
43. Ko, C.H.; Chung, N.F. Lean design process. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 04014011. [CrossRef]
44. Salgin, B.; Arroyo, P.; Ballard, G. Exploring the relationship between lean design methods and C&D waste
reduction: Three case studies of hospital projects in California. Rev. Ing. De Constr. 2016, 31, 191–200.
45. Wesz, J.G.B.; Formoso, C.T.; Tzortzopoulos, P. Planning and controlling design in engineered-to-order
prefabricated building systems. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 134–152. [CrossRef]
46. Woodside, A.G. Case Study Research: Theory, Methods, Practice; Emerald Group Pub.: Bingley, UK, 2010.
47. Ortiz-González, J.I.; Pellicer, E.; Molenaar, K.R. Determining contingencies in the management of construction
projects. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 50, 1–17.
48. Ortiz, J.I.; Pellicer, E.; Molenaar, K.R. Management of time and cost contingencies in construction projects: A
contractor perspective. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2018, 24, 254–264. [CrossRef]
49. Senthilkumar, V.; Varghese, K. Case study–based testing of design interface management system. J. Manag.
Eng. 2013, 29, 279–288. [CrossRef]
50. Barratt, M.; Choi, T.Y.; Li, M. Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes,
future research implications. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 329–342. [CrossRef]
51. Firouzi, A.; Yang, W.; Li, C.Q. Prediction of total cost of construction project with dependent cost items. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016072. [CrossRef]
52. Antillon, E.I.; Garvin, M.J.; Molenaar, K.R.; Javernick-Will, A. Influence of inter-organizational coordination
on lifecycle design decision making: Comparative case study of public–private partnership highway projects.
J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 05018007. [CrossRef]
53. Kang, C.; Choi, B.C. An adaptive crashing policy for stochastic time-cost tradeoff problems. Comput. Oper.
Res. 2015, 63, 1–6. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).