Perceptions of stakeholders in project procurement for road construction

Figures & data

Figure 1. Steps in Q methodology.

Table 1. List of statements

Statement
1	Contracts should always be procured for the lowest costs
2	Contracts with lowest costs stimulate innovation
3	Innovation during project planning period leads to risks
4	Environmentally friendly procurement for maintenance contracts requires long-term relationships with the contractor
5	Contracts with the lowest cost increase risks
6	The durability of a road is the largest risk in contracts
7	It is riskier to maintain roads consisting of recycled materials
8	Safety of road workers of the contractors in maintenance contracts is an important risk for the Swedish Transport Administration
9	Uncertainties in the predicted pavement life cycle are a large risk for the Swedish Transport Administration
10	Changes in the market balance between the different major contractors are a risk for the Swedish Transport Administration
11	Warranty on pavement life takes out all risks for the Swedish Transport Administration
12	Innovation in contracts justifies an increase in costs
13	Aiming for lowest costs will not be a blockage for innovation
14	Green procurement leads to innovation
15	When applying innovation, major improvements in the durability of pavements can be expected
16	Greenhouse gasses can be reduced by 50% through innovation
17	Through requirements on recyclability, innovation can be stimulated
18	The safety requirements of the Swedish Transport Administration take out all incentives to innovate for contractors
19	Any innovation will lead to more insecurity in the predictability of pavement life
20	The most innovative contractor will increase its market position significantly
21	The current market balance is the result of the push for lowest costs
22	The Swedish Transport Administration should not ask for a warranty when simultaneously asking for innovation
23	Tenders should be awarded by both projected costs and CO2 emissions
24	Roads with high durability will always cost more
25	Pushing for the lowest cost contract imposes challenges on the road safety
26	Warranty on a road reduces the costs over the road’s life cycle
27	The current market balance is the result of the push for lowest costs
28	By selecting more awarding criteria than costs, the buyer can influence the market balance
29	Green roads will never be a reality if the Swedish Transport Administration keeps the same requirements on durability
30	A shift from technical to functional requirements will lead to innovation
31	A recyclable road is a green road
32	Contractors should give warranties on the CO2 performance of a contract
33	It is better to have a recyclable non-durable road than a durable non-recyclable one.
34	The lower durability of a road leads to more traffic incidents
35	The prediction methods for durability of pavements need to be improved
36	The contractor with a track record of durable roads should have an advantage in procurement
37	Projects that require a warranty never result in more durable roads
38	Contractors with recycling capability should be rewarded more in procurement
39	A push for recyclability will force some contractors out of the market
40	The contractor that is best in predicting the pavement life cycle will dominate the market
41	Successful previous work should not be taken into account in awarding tenders
42	Changes in the market balance between the different major contractors are a risk for contractors
43	Contractors outside Sweden have similar capability to that of Swedish companies

Figure 2. Q sort response matrix.

Figure 3. Web-based tool for Q methodology.

Table 2. Factor matrix with defining sort

Sorts	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Sort 01	0.39	0.32	0.40
Sort 02	0.35	0.68	0.38
Sort 03	0.32	−0.06	0.69
Sort 04	0.27	0.59	0.06
Sort 05	0.58	0.29	0.14
Sort 06	0.54	0.02	−0.10
Sort 07	0.58	0.17	0.22
Sort 08	0.57	0.46	0.22
Sort 09	0.26	0.39	0.45
Sort 10	0.62	0.36	0.38
Sort 11	0.06	0.29	0.21
Sort 12	0.32	0.22	0.30
Sort 13	0.25	0.69	0.05
Sort 14	0.22	0.60	0.08
Sort 15	0.20	0.47	−0.12
Sort 16	0.02	0.45	0.28
Sort 17	−0.10	0.39	0.63
Sort 18	0.16	0.64	0.32
Sort 19	0.09	0.63	0.34
Sort 20	0.17	0.00	0.64
Sort 21	−0.05	0.36	0.55
Total	6	9	6

Table 3. Correlation between factors

	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Factor 1	1.000	0.522	0.143
Factor 2	0.522	1.000	0.216
Factor 3	0.143	0.216	1.000