Development of EPC model in Chinese public projects: evolutionary game among stakeholders

Figures & data

Table 1. Influencing factors.

Influencing factor	Statement
Scale	Project scale [1][7]; Project size [2][4][5][8][10];
Complexity	Project complexity [1]; Complexity [2][7][8][10][12][13]
Uncertainty	Environmental uncertainty [1]; Site conditions [2]; Uncertain site conditions [4]; Project technical uncertainty [5]; Capitalizing on familiar project condition [9]; Certainty [13]; Familiar project conditions [4]
Clarity of scope	Level of scope definition [2]; Clarity of scope [4]; Ability to clearly state end user’s requirements [6]; Ability to define project scope [7]; Capitalizing on well-defined scope [9]; Scope change [12]
Flexibility	Project flexibility [2][4]; Flexibility in quality control [4]; Flexibility to changes [5]; Flexibility [7][13];
Schedule performance objective	Time requirement [1]; Schedule acceleration [2]; Criticality of schedule [4]; Schedule performance objective [5]; Delivery speed [7]; Schedule [8][10][12]; Control time growth [9]; Ensurance of shortest schedule [9]; Reduced schedule [11]; Speed [13]
Cost performance objective	Cost requirement [1]; Lower total project cost [1][4]; Cost performance objective [5]; Owner’s requirement for low maintenance cost [6]; Cost certainty [7]; Cost [8][10][12]; Life cycle costs [8][10]; Control of cost growth [9]; Ensurance of lowest cost [9]; Facilitation of early cost estimate [9]; Early cost establishment [11]; Cost savings [11]
Quality performance objective	Quality requirement [1]; Quality performance objective [5] Quality performance [7]; Enhancement of quality [11]; Quality [12]; Quality level [13]
Clear responsibility	Single entity responsible for design and construction [11]; Clarity of responsibility [5]; Responsibility [6]; Staffing required [8][10]; Point of responsibility [13]
Risk control and allocation	Ability to undertake risks [1]; Client’s risk attitude [5]; Owner’s willingness to take risks [7]; Risk control and allocation [5]; Risk allocation [6]; Risk management [8][10]; Risk allocation [8][10]; Reduction of risk or transfer of risk to contractor [9]; Risk [12]; Risk avoidance [13]
Price competition	Price competition [5][13]; Competition [8][10]
Owner’s ability and experience	Management ability [1]; staff capability [2][8][10]; Agency inexperience [4][8][10]; Client’s technical ability [5]; Client’s management ability [5]; Owner’s level of construction sophistication [6]; Owner’s in-house technical capability [6]; Owner’s financial capability [6]; Owner’s available human resources [6][7]; Coordination ability [1]; Number of history choices [1]; Experience [2][12]; Client’s project experience [5]; Owner’s experience with similar projects [6][1]
Owner’s willingness to participate and control	Willingness to participate in project [1]; Involvement and control [2]; Agency involvement and control [4]; Client’s preference to control project [5]; Owner’s willingness to control design [6]; Owner’s willingness to be involved [7]; owner’s controlling role [9]; Owner’s involvement [9]; Builder involvement in process [11]
Attitude toward disputes	Attitude toward disputes [1]; Likelihood of disputes and claims [2]; Disputes [7]
Market environment	Market environment [1]; Marketplace conditions [2]; Market competitiveness [3]; Unfavorable marketplace conditions [4]; Economic environment [5]; External environment [7]
Policy and regulation	Policy and regulation [1][5]; Federal/state/local laws [2][8][10]; External approval [12]; Political impacts [3]; Regulatory feasibility [7]
Contractor capacity and quantity	Contractor’s number [1] Contractor’s capability [7]; Potential contractor’s ability [5]; Qualifications and past performance of designer and builder [11]; Technology availability [7]; Potential contractor’s market reputation [1]; Potential contractor’s credibility [5]; Market competitiveness [7]; Potential contractor’s service level [1]
Innovation	Innovative attitude [1]; Innovation [2][4][11]; Efficient coordination of project complexity or innovation [9]

[1] Zhu et al. (2020); [2] Demetracopoulou, O’Brien, and Khawaja (2020); [3] Liu et al. (2019); [4] Khwaja et al. (2018); [5] Qiang et al. (2015); [6] Liu et al. (2015); [7] Chen et al. (2011); [8] Touran et al. (2011); [9] Mostafavi and Karamouz (2010); [10] Touran et al. (2009); [11] Puerto, Gransberg, and Shane (2008); [12] Mafakheri et al. (2007); [13] Chan (2007).

Figure 1. Research framework.

Table 2. Payment matrix of tripartite game.

				Construction companies
				Upgrading qualifications (z)	Not upgrading qualifications (1 − z)
TheGovernment	Incentive (x)	Theowner	Choose EPC (y)	$G+B-C-D_1-D_2$$R_2-P_2-Q_2+D_1$$P_2\beta -M_2+D_2$	$G+B-C-D_1$$R_2-P_2-Q_2+D_1$$\gamma P_1\alpha -M_1$
	No incentive (1 − x)		Choose DBB (1 − y)	$G-C+T$$R_1-P_1-Q_1-T$$\gamma P_1\alpha -M_2$	$G-C+T$$R_1-P_1-Q_1-T$$\gamma P_1\alpha$
	Incentive (x)		Choose EPC (y)	$G+B$$R_2-P_2-Q_2$$P_2\beta -M_2$	$G+B$$R_2-P_2-Q_2$$\gamma P_1\alpha -M_1$
	No incentive (1 − x)		Choose DBB (1 − y)	$G$$R_1-P_1-Q_1$$\gamma P_1\alpha -M_2$	$G$$R_1-P_1-Q_1$$\gamma P_1\alpha$

Table 3. Conditions of stability at equilibrium points.

Equilibrium point	Condition of ESS
$D_1\left(0,0,0\right)$	$T-C<0$; $R_2-P_2-Q_2-\left(R_1-P_1-Q_1\right)<0$; $-M_2<0$
$D_2\left(1,0,0\right)$	$C-T<0$; $R_2-P_2-Q_2-\left(R_1-P_1-Q_1\right)+D_1+T<0$; $-M_2<0$
$D_3\left(0,1,0\right)$	$-C+T-D_1<0$; $-\left[R_2-P_2-Q_2-\left(R_1-P_1-Q_1\right)\right]<0$; $-M_2+P_2\beta -\alpha \gamma P_1+M_1<0$
$D_5\left(1,1,0\right)$	$-C+T+D_1<0$; $-\left[R_2-P_2-Q_2-\left(R_1-P_1-Q_1\right)+D_1+T\right]<0$; $D_2-M_2+P_2\beta -\alpha \gamma P_1+M_1<0$
$D_7\left(0,1,1\right)$	$-C+T-D_1-D_2<0$; $-\left[R_2-P_2-Q_2-\left(R_1-P_1-Q_1\right)\right]<0$; $M_2-P_2\beta +\alpha \gamma P_1-M_1<0$
$D_8\left(1,1,1\right)$	$C-T+D_1+D_2<0$; $-\left[R_2-P_2-Q_2-\left(R_1-P_1-Q_1\right)+D_1+T\right]<0$; $-D_2+M_2-P_2\beta +\alpha \gamma P_1-M_1<0$

Table 4. Interviewees.

No.	Gender	Working years	Location	Position	Parent organization
1	Female	25	Xi’an, China	Professor	University
2	Male	23	Nanjing, China	Professor	University
3	Female	18	Beijing, China	Senior Engineer	Academy of Sciences
4	Male	20	Beijing, China	Senior Consultant	Consulting Company
5	Male	16	Shangluo, China	Senior Official	Government Department
6	Male	16	Qingdao, China	Department Manager	Urban Construction Investment Company
7	Male	17	Xi’an, China	Director	EPC Construction Companies

Figure 2. Evolution of government, owner, and company at $D_1\left(0,0,0\right)$, Scenario I: C = 0.15, T = 0.1, D1 = 0.05, D2 = 0.05, R1 = 25, R2 = 25.1, P1 = 21, P2 = 22, Q1 = 1.2, Q2 = 0.5, M1 = 0.1, M2 = 0.25, $\alpha =3.5\mathrm{\%},\beta =5\mathrm{\%},\gamma =0.98$.

Figure 3. Evolution of government, owner, and company at $D_2\left(1,0,0\right)$, Scenario II: C = 0.05, T = 0.1, D1 = 0.05, D2 = 0.05, R1 = 25, R2 = 25.1, P1 = 21, P2 = 22, Q1 = 1.2, Q2 = 0.5, M1 = 0.1, M2 = 0.25, $\alpha =3.5\mathrm{\%},\beta =5\mathrm{\%},\gamma =0.98$.

Figure 4. Evolution of government, owner, and company at $D_3\left(0,1,0\right)$, Scenario III: C = 0.15, T = 0.1, D1 = 0.05, D2 = 0.05, R1 = 25, R2 = 25.5, P1 = 21, P2 = 22, Q1 = 1.2, Q2 = 0.5, M1 = 0.1, M2 = 1.5, $\alpha =3.5\mathrm{\%},\beta =5\mathrm{\%},\gamma =0.98$.

Figure 5. Evolutionary of government, owner, and company at $D_5\left(1,1,0\right)$, Scenario IV: C = 0.15, T = 0.3, D1 = 0.05, D2 = 0.05, R1 = 25, R2 = 25.1, P1 = 21, P2 = 22, Q1 = 1.2, Q2 = 0.5, M1 = 0.1, M2 = 1.5, $\alpha =3.5\mathrm{\%},\beta =5\mathrm{\%},\gamma =0.98$.

Figure 6. Evolution of government, owner, and company at $D_7\left(0,1,1\right)$, Scenario V: C = 0.15, T = 0.1, D1 = 0.05, D2 = 0.05, R1 = 25, R2 = 25.5, P1 = 21, P2 = 22, Q1 = 1.2, Q2 = 0.5, M1 = 0.1, M2 = 0.25, $\alpha =3.5\mathrm{\%},\beta =5\mathrm{\%},\gamma =0.98$.

Figure 7. Evolution of government, owner, and company at $D_8\left(1,1,1\right)$, Scenario VI: C = 0.15, T = 0.3, D1 = 0.05, D2 = 0.05, R1 = 25, R2 = 25.1, P1 = 21, P2 = 22, Q1 = 1.2, Q2 = 0.5, M1 = 0.1, M2 = 0.25, $\alpha =3.5\mathrm{\%},\beta =5\mathrm{\%},\gamma =0.98$.

Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis of government, owners, and companies to C.

Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis of government, owner, and companies to T.

Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis of government, owner, and companies to D1.

Figure 11. Sensitivity analysis of government, owner, and companies to D2.

Figure 12. Sensitivity analysis of government, owner, and companies to R2.

Figure 13. Sensitivity analysis of government, owner, and companies to P2, Q2.

Figure 14. Sensitivity analysis of government, owner, and companies to M2.

Figure 15. Sensitivity analysis of government, owner, and companies to β.

Figure 16. Evolving trend influenced by key parameters.

Zhu, J. W., L. N. Zhou, L. Li, and W. Ali. 2020. “Decision Simulation of Construction Project Delivery System under the Sustainable Construction Project Management.” Sustainability 12 (6). doi:10.3390/su12062202.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Demetracopoulou, V., W. J. O’Brien, and N. Khawaja. 2020. “Lessons Learned from Selection of Project Delivery Methods in Highway Projects: The Texas Experience.” Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 12 (1): 4519040. doi:10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000340.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, B., B. Xue, T. Huo, G. Shen, and M. Fu. 2019. “Project External Environmental Factors Affecting Project Delivery Systems Selection.” Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 25 (3): 276–286. doi:10.3846/jcem.2019.7460.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khwaja, N., W. J. O’Brien, M. Martinez, B. Sankaran, J. T. O’Connor, and W. B. Hale. 2018. “Innovations in Project Delivery Method Selection Approach in the Texas Department of Transportation.” Journal of Management in Engineering 34 (6): 5018010–5018011. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000645.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Qiang, M., Q. Wen, H. Jiang, and S. Yuan. 2015. “Factors Governing Construction Project Delivery Selection: A Content Analysis.” International Journal of Project Management 33 (8): 1780–1794. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, B., T. Huo, Q. Shen, Z. Yang, J. Meng, and B. Xue. 2015. “Which Owner Characteristics are Key Factors Affecting Project Delivery System Decision Making? Empirical Analysis Based on the Rough Set Theory.” Journal of Management in Engineering 31 (4): 5014018. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000298.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, Y. Q., J. Y. Liu, B. Li, and B. Lin. 2011. “Project Delivery System Selection of Construction Projects in China.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (5): 5456–5462. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Touran, A., D. D. Gransberg, K. R. Molenaar, and K. Ghavamifar. 2011. “Selection of Project Delivery Method in Transit: Drivers and Objectives.” Journal of Management in Engineering 27 (1): 21–27. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000027.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mostafavi, A., and M. Karamouz. 2010. “Selecting Appropriate Project Delivery System: Fuzzy Approach with Risk Analysis.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136 (8): 923–930. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000190.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Touran, A., K. R. Molenaar, D. D. Gransberg, and K. Ghavamifar. 2009. “Decision Support System for Selection of Project Delivery Method in Transit.” Transportation Research Record 2111 (1): 148–157. doi:10.3141/2111-17.

 Google Scholar

Puerto, C. L. D., D. D. Gransberg, and J. S. Shane. 2008. “Comparative Analysis of Owner Goals for Design/build Projects.” Journal of Management in Engineering 24 (1): 32–39. doi:10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2008)24:1(32).

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mafakheri, F., L. Dai, D. Slezak, and F. Nasiri. 2007. “Project Delivery System Selection under Uncertainty: Multicriteria Multilevel Decision Aid Model.” Journal of Management in Engineering 23 (4): 200–206. doi:10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2007)23:4(200).

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chan, C. T. W. 2007. “Fuzzy Procurement Selection Model for Construction Projects.” Construction Management and Economics 25 (6): 611–618. doi:10.1080/01446190701209933.

 Google Scholar