How does the improved DB mode degrade the complex integrity of infrastructure mega-projects? Evidence from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project in China

doi:10.15302/J-FEM-2018083

Front. Eng

2018, Vol. 5

Issue (1) : 40-51 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2018083

RESEARCH ARTICLE

How does the improved DB mode degrade the complex integrity of infrastructure mega-projects? Evidence from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project in China

Jinwen ZHANG¹, Yumin QIU²(

)

¹. School of Management and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China; Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Authority, Zhuhai 519060, China
². School of Management and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China

Download: PDF(1130 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Complex integrity is one of the main characteristics of infrastructure mega-projects (IMPs). Cost, technology, risk, duration, environmental impact, and other uncertain complexities are interrelated and constitute a challenging and complex management problem. At present, there is no unified understanding of or solutions to these complex integrity problems. This study analyzes the complex integrity of the island-tunnel subproject of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) project and proposes an improved design-build (DB) mode in which the owner provides a preliminary design and has the right to form and manage consortium. This improved DB mode creatively degrades the special complexities that arise from multiple dimensions. On this basis, it is an efficacious way to grasp the main contradictions, integrate the effective resources, and degrade the complex integrity in multiple dimensions and at multiple levels so as to effectively deal with the complexity management of IMPs.

Keywords Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project island-tunnel subproject complex integrity complexity degradation the general contracting mode of design-build the design-build consortium

Corresponding Author(s): Yumin QIU

Just Accepted Date: 21 December 2017 Online First Date: 30 January 2018 Issue Date: 21 March 2018

Cite this article:

Jinwen ZHANG,Yumin QIU. How does the improved DB mode degrade the complex integrity of infrastructure mega-projects? Evidence from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project in China[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(1): 40-51.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2018083
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2018/V5/I1/40

The Improved DB mode	The owner provides a preliminary design and has the right to form and manage the design-build consortium
The Improved DB mode	The owner provides preliminary design		The design-build consortium with specific construction and management requirements
Specific requirements	Bidding stage: based on preliminary design	Bidding	Requirements for the design-build consortium	Leader of the consortium, design leader of the consortium: they both the construction companies who hold the high level of performance on the large-scale construction and design projects
		Propose the construction survey, and the design plan		An international design company
		Propose the study of DWD, and then verify the plan		A CMC company focusing on
		Propose the optimizing design		A CMC company focusing on
	Construction stage: based on the contract documents	Carry out the DWD	Requirements for design and build	To ensure the relative independence of the design
		Link the designers and contractors, and improve, optimize the whole IMP		International design partners undertake the evaluation of the construction drawings
		Complete the project construction, and then fulfill the inspection		A CMC company evaluates the construction plan
Characteristics of risk	Risk for the owner	Reduce the risks from incomplete structural and functional requirements, the ambiguity from construction stage, a large number of claims.	Risk for the owner	Reduce the total risk towards to the owner from the general contractor’s fault
	Risk for the owner	Transfer the risk from stage of the preliminary design to the stage of DWD	Risk for the owner	Reduce the risk from the owner’s mistakes from their unprofessional management and decision.
	Risk for bidders	Undertake the risk of tendering offer without work drawings	Risk for bidders	They share the interest and risk with high level of distribution on the risks.
	Risk for bidders	Undertake the risk from stage of the preliminary design to the stage of DWD	Risk for bidders	They have complementary advantages, have set up the principle of scientific management on HZMB project.
Comparative advantages of different plans	Compared with Plan A	It is more suitable to the nature of complexity embedded in HZMB project and for its objective control	Compared with Plan C	The competitiveness of the construction consortium is much stronger, and it is more suitable for the high standard of the HZMB project.
Comparative advantages of different plans	Compared with Plan B	It is more conducive to link the designers and contractors on dynamically interacting processes, and more helpful to carry out the management method-“design and construction linkage, construction drive design”	Compared with Plan D	It can enhance the comprehensive ability and ability to resist risks, and help solve the technical problems.

Tab.1 The main advantages of the improved DB mode

Fig.1 Organization composition and task division of the design-build consortium in the island-tunnel project

Fig.2 Integrated management mode of the design-build consortium in the island-tunnel project

Fig.3 Comparison of the improved DB mode and the traditional mode

Fig.4 Design and construction linkage, construction drive design

1	J C Albrecht, K Spang (2014). Linking the benefits of project management maturity to project complexity. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(2): 285–301 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-08-2013-0040
2	D Baccarini (1996). The concept of project complexity–A review. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4): 201–204 https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3
3	M Bosch-Rekveldt, Y Jongkind, H Mooi, H Bakker, A Verbraeck (2011). Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: The TOE (Technical, Organizational and Environmental) framework. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6): 728–739 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.008
4	T Brady, A Davies (2014). Managing structural and dynamic complexity: A tale of two projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4): 21–38 https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21434
5	H S Chan (2003). The civil service under one country, two systems Public Administration Review, 63(4): 405–417 https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00304
6	R J Chapman (2016). A framework for examining the dimensions and characteristics of complexity inherent within rail megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 34(6): 937–956 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.001
7	H Q Chen, Q K Su, S X Zeng, D X Sun (2017a). Overcoming the innovation island in mega-infrastructure project. Working Paper
8	H Q Chen, S X Zeng, H Lin, H Y Ma (2017b). Munificence, dynamism, and complexity: How industry context drives corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2): 125–141 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1902
9	S P Cheng, Y M Qiu, J X Tong (2016). Research on Supply Chain Management of Mega-project. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press (in Chinese)
10	A Davies, I Mackenzie (2014). Project complexity and systems integration: constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5): 773–790 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.004
11	C Fang, F Marle (2013). Dealing with project complexity by matrix-based propagation modelling for project risk analysis. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(4): 239–256 https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.720014
12	B Flyvbjerg (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3): 5-15
13	B Flyvbjerg (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2): 6–19 https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409
14	B Flyvbjerg, N Bruzelius, W Rothengatter (2003). Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
15	J M Geringer, H Louis (1989). Control and performance of international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 20(2): 235–254 https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490359
16	J M Geringer, H Louis (1991). Measuring performance of international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2): 249–263 https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490302
17	G Girmscheid, C Brockmann (2008). The inherent complexity of large scale engineering projects. Project Perspectives, (29): 22–26
18	W Haynes (2011). Infrastructure megaproject leadership, management, innovation, and accountability. Public Works Management & Policy, 16(3): 193–198 https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X11410576
19	J Hongyun (2005). Research on technology innovation system based on complexity theory. Studies in Science of Science, 2002 20(4): 437–440
20	W Imbeah, S Guikema (2009). Managing construction projects using the advanced programmatic risk analysis and management model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(8): 772–781 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:8(772)
21	F Kodeih, R Greenwood (2014). Responding to institutional complexity: The role of identity. Organization Studies, 35(1): 7–39 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613495333
22	D Lessard, V Sakhrani, R Miller (2014). House of project complexity—Understanding complexity in large infrastructure projects. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 4(4): 170–192 https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2014.907151
23	Y B Lu, L Luo, H L Wang, Y Le, Q Shi (2015). Measurement model of project complexity for large-scale projects from task and organization perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 33(3): 610–622 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.005
24	A Mohr, C Wang, F Fastoso (2016). The contingent effect of state participation on the dissolution of international joint ventures: A resource dependence approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(4): 408–426 https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.14
25	B Ozorhon, D Arditi, I Dikmen, M T Birgonul (2007). Effect of host country and project conditions in international construction joint ventures. International Journal of Project Management, 25(8): 799–806 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.003
26	B Ozorhon, D Arditi, I Dikmen, M T Birgonul (2008). Implications of culture in the performance of international construction joint ventures. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(5): 361–370 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:5(361)
27	M T Pich, C H Loch, A De Meyer (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8): 1008–1023 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1008.163
28	T S Pitsis, S Sankaran, S Gudergan, S R Clegg (2014). Governing projects under complexity: Theory and practice in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8): 1285–1290 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.001
29	Y M Qiu, H Q Chen, Z H Sheng, S P Cheng (2017). How to govern the conflicting institutional logics in mega-infrastructure project : Evidence from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge in China. Working paper
30	S M Qureshi, C W Kang (2015). Analysing the organizational factors of project complexity using structural equation modelling. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1): 165–176 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.006
31	Z H Sheng (2018). Fundamental theories of mega infrastructure Construction Management (Vol. 259). Cham: Springer International Publishing
32	E W K Tsang (2016). How existing organizational practices affect the transfer of practices to international joint ventures. Management International Review, 56(4): 565–595 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0261-8
33	L A Vidal, F Marle (2008). Understanding project complexity: Implications on project management. Kybernetes, 37(8): 1094–1110 https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920810884928
34	L A Vidal, F Marle, J C Bocquet (2011). Measuring project complexity using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6): 718–727 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.005
35	S X Zeng, H Y Ma, H Lin, H Q Chen, J J Shi (2017). The societal governance of megaproject social responsibility. International Journal of Project Management, 35(7): 1–13
36	J W Zhang (2017). The construction management and planning of the main project in the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. China Highway, (1): 73–75 (in Chinese)
37	J W Zhang, Z H Sheng (2014). Study on the relationship of the “government” principal-agent in the decision-making of the major projects: Based on the practice of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project. Scientific Decision-Making, (12): 23–34 (in Chinese)
38	J W Zhang, Y L Zhu (2012). Project management planning for construction of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) main Bridge project. Highway, (3): 143–14 (in Chinese)
39	J W Zhang, Y L Zhu, X L Gao, G Liu (2012). Design-build contracting model development for islands and tunnel engineering of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project. Highway, (1): 133–136 (in Chinese)

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed