Abstract
This dissertation critically examines whether contemporary procurement models within modern methods of construction (MMC) incentivise high-quality project outcomes or inadvertently encourage corner-cutting practices. Through a comprehensive literature synthesis of fifty peer-reviewed studies spanning 2016 to 2025, this research evaluates the trajectory from traditional, fragmented procurement approaches towards collaborative, lean-based frameworks including Integrated Project Delivery, Design-Build, and alliance contracts. The findings reveal substantial evidence that collaborative procurement models, particularly when integrated with digital tools such as Building Information Modelling and lean construction principles, demonstrably reward quality outcomes through aligned incentive structures, early stakeholder engagement, and transparent risk-sharing mechanisms. However, the research equally identifies persistent vulnerabilities where traditional lowest-bid procurement practices or poorly designed incentive frameworks continue to foster conditions conducive to corner-cutting. The dissertation concludes that whilst significant progress has been achieved in aligning procurement incentives with quality objectives, sustained vigilance and regulatory refinement remain essential to prevent regression towards cost-driven compromises. Recommendations for future research address longitudinal quality sustainability, context-specific barrier identification, and optimal human-technology integration strategies.
Introduction
The construction industry has undergone profound transformation in recent decades, driven by escalating demands for improved efficiency, sustainability, and quality assurance. Modern methods of construction represent a paradigm shift from conventional building approaches, incorporating innovations in prefabrication, modular construction, digital integration, and collaborative project delivery mechanisms. Within this evolving landscape, procurement models serve as the fundamental architecture governing relationships between clients, contractors, designers, and supply chain stakeholders, ultimately determining how risk is allocated, how incentives operate, and consequently, whether quality outcomes are prioritised or compromised.
The significance of this examination extends beyond academic interest into matters of considerable public concern. Construction quality failures carry substantial consequences, from structural defects endangering occupant safety to costly remediation works, project delays, and reputational damage affecting entire sectors. The Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017 brought into sharp focus the catastrophic potential when procurement systems fail to adequately safeguard quality, with subsequent inquiries revealing systemic failures in oversight, testing, and contractual accountability. Such incidents underscore the imperative to understand whether contemporary procurement frameworks genuinely incentivise quality or create conditions where commercial pressures override safety and performance standards.
Traditional procurement approaches, characterised by sequential design-bid-build processes and adversarial contractual relationships, have faced sustained criticism for fragmenting project responsibility and creating misaligned incentives. When contractors compete primarily on price, and when responsibility for design, construction, and operational performance remains siloed, the conditions emerge for corner-cutting—whether through material substitution, inadequate supervision, or compressed timeframes that compromise workmanship. Conversely, modern collaborative procurement models promise to address these deficiencies through integrated delivery systems, shared risk-reward mechanisms, and early engagement of construction expertise in design development.
The academic and practical importance of this topic derives from its position at the intersection of construction management, contract law, organisational behaviour, and public policy. Understanding the precise mechanisms through which procurement models influence quality outcomes enables informed decision-making by clients, regulators, and industry practitioners. Moreover, as governments worldwide increase infrastructure investment whilst simultaneously pursuing sustainability objectives, the need for procurement systems that deliver lasting quality becomes ever more pressing.
This dissertation synthesises contemporary research evidence to address the central question of whether modern procurement models reward quality outcomes or encourage corner-cutting, contributing to theoretical understanding whilst offering practical insights for industry transformation.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically evaluate whether contemporary procurement models in modern methods of construction effectively incentivise high-quality project outcomes or create conditions that encourage corner-cutting practices.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives have been established:
1. To trace the evolution of procurement models in the construction industry from traditional approaches to contemporary collaborative frameworks, identifying the key characteristics and theoretical underpinnings of each model type.
2. To examine the empirical evidence regarding the relationship between specific procurement model features and measurable quality outcomes, including defect rates, rework incidence, client satisfaction, and long-term performance.
3. To identify and analyse the mechanisms through which procurement incentive structures influence contractor and stakeholder behaviour, with particular attention to conditions that may foster corner-cutting.
4. To evaluate the role of digital tools and lean construction principles in mediating the relationship between procurement models and quality outcomes.
5. To synthesise research findings into actionable recommendations for procurement practice and identify gaps requiring further investigation.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to examine the relationship between procurement models and quality outcomes in modern construction. The approach combines structured database searching with critical analysis to develop a comprehensive understanding of the current evidence base.
Search strategy and data sources
A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple academic databases, including Semantic Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, encompassing over 170 million research papers. The search employed targeted queries combining terms related to procurement models (including “Integrated Project Delivery,” “Design-Build,” “alliance contracts,” “collaborative procurement”), modern methods of construction (including “MMC,” “prefabrication,” “modular construction”), quality outcomes (including “quality performance,” “defects,” “rework,” “client satisfaction”), and corner-cutting (including “quality compromise,” “cost-cutting,” “shortcuts,” “non-compliance”).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Papers were included if they addressed procurement methods in construction contexts, examined quality-related outcomes or incentive mechanisms, were published in peer-reviewed journals or reputable conference proceedings, and were available in English. Papers were excluded if they focused exclusively on non-construction contexts, lacked empirical or theoretical engagement with procurement-quality relationships, or represented grey literature without academic rigour.
Selection process
The initial search identified 1,093 potentially relevant papers. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts for relevance, 711 papers proceeded to full-text screening. Of these, 581 met eligibility criteria based on substantive engagement with MMC procurement and quality themes. The final review incorporated the fifty most relevant papers, selected based on methodological rigour, citation impact, and direct relevance to the research questions.
Analysis approach
The synthesis employed thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns, theoretical frameworks, and empirical findings across the included studies. Papers were coded according to procurement model type examined, quality metrics employed, geographic context, and methodological approach. This enabled systematic comparison across studies and identification of consensus findings, contested claims, and evidence gaps. The analysis explicitly considered evidence strength, distinguishing between claims supported by multiple rigorous empirical studies and those resting on limited or context-specific evidence.
Methodological limitations
Several limitations warrant acknowledgement. The reliance on published literature may introduce publication bias, with positive findings potentially over-represented. The heterogeneity of quality metrics across studies complicates direct comparison, whilst geographic variation in regulatory and contractual frameworks limits generalisability. The synthesis approach, whilst enabling broad coverage, cannot substitute for primary empirical investigation of specific procurement contexts.
Literature review
Evolution from traditional to collaborative procurement
The construction industry’s procurement landscape has undergone substantial transformation over recent decades, moving away from traditional methods towards increasingly collaborative approaches. Traditional procurement, typically characterised by sequential design-bid-build processes, separates design and construction responsibilities whilst allocating risk primarily to contractors through fixed-price competitive tendering. Naoum and Egbu (2016) documented how these traditional approaches dominated construction practice for much of the twentieth century, providing clients with apparent cost certainty but generating adversarial relationships and fragmented project delivery.
The limitations of traditional procurement prompted the development of alternative models emphasising integration and collaboration. Jayasinghe, Domingo, and Le (2025) traced this evolution through progressive design-build, early contractor involvement, Integrated Project Delivery, and alliance contracting. These contemporary approaches share common characteristics including early stakeholder engagement, open-book costing, pain/gain sharing mechanisms, long-term relationship orientation, and incentive structures aligned with collective project success rather than individual party optimisation.
Osuizugbo (2025) proposed buildability-led procurement as a further evolution, positioning constructability assessment at the heart of procurement decisions rather than treating it as a downstream concern. This approach exemplifies the broader trend towards procurement models that integrate construction expertise earlier in project development, potentially reducing the design-construction conflicts that traditional procurement perpetuates.
Collaborative models and quality outcomes
Substantial empirical evidence supports the association between collaborative procurement models and improved quality outcomes. Garcés and colleagues (2025) conducted a systematic review of lean construction approaches, finding consistent improvements in project deliverables including higher build quality, fewer defects, reduced rework incidents, and enhanced client satisfaction. These findings align with Ibrahim, Zayed, and Lafhaj’s (2025) comprehensive analysis of lean construction practices in megaprojects, which documented significant quality improvements when collaborative delivery systems replaced traditional fragmented approaches.
Xing and colleagues (2020) provided detailed case study evidence from Chinese construction projects implementing lean techniques within collaborative procurement frameworks. Their findings demonstrated measurable reductions in waste, defects, and cost overruns compared to traditionally procured comparator projects. Similarly, Zhu, Rahman, and Khamis (2025) employed structural equation modelling to quantify the impact of lean construction practices on sustainability performance in Chinese engineering-procurement-construction projects, confirming positive relationships between collaborative approaches and quality metrics.
Ramesh and Swaminathan (2024) examined the synergistic effects of integrating lean practices, sustainable construction methods, and alliance contracts within the Indian construction industry. Their research documented significant operational performance improvements attributable to this integrated approach, supporting theoretical arguments that procurement model characteristics interact with complementary management practices to influence outcomes.
Incentive structures and behavioural implications
The mechanisms through which procurement models influence quality outcomes operate primarily through incentive structures that shape stakeholder behaviour. Perks (2023) developed a novel procurement model drawing on behavioural economics principles to enable continuous improvement in UK infrastructure projects. This research highlighted how traditional price-competition creates incentives for cost minimisation that may conflict with quality objectives, whereas well-designed performance-based contracts align individual rewards with collective project success.
Fadnavis and Kim (2025) examined early supplier involvement through innovative organisational structures, finding that structured compensation mechanisms for design-phase contributions increased design productivity by up to 38% whilst reducing subsequent rework. This evidence supports theoretical predictions that procurement models affecting when and how expertise is engaged influence both the quality of design solutions and their constructability.
Assaf, Hussein, Abdelkhalek, and Zayed (2023) developed a multi-criteria decision-making model for selecting project delivery systems in offsite construction, explicitly incorporating quality outcomes alongside cost and schedule considerations. Their framework demonstrates growing recognition that procurement selection should systematically consider quality implications rather than defaulting to cost-driven choices.
Conditions fostering corner-cutting
Whilst collaborative models demonstrate positive quality associations, the literature equally documents conditions under which corner-cutting persists. Maiti and De Almeida (2023) analysed procurement method discussions in the construction industry, identifying how price-driven competition without adequate quality safeguards creates adversarial relationships and incentivises cost-saving at quality’s expense. Their analysis emphasised that procurement model selection alone does not guarantee outcomes; implementation quality and contractual detail significantly moderate effects.
Tabinga and Rupi (2025) provided critical analysis from Zimbabwe, demonstrating how MMC implementation within traditional or fragmented delivery systems fails to realise quality potential. Their research highlighted that adopting modern construction techniques without corresponding procurement evolution perpetuates the incentive misalignments that collaborative approaches seek to address. This finding underscores the systemic nature of procurement-quality relationships; isolated innovations cannot overcome fundamentally misaligned contractual frameworks.
The persistence of lowest-bid procurement in many jurisdictions represents a continuing risk factor. When clients prioritise initial cost minimisation without robust performance specifications or ongoing quality verification mechanisms, contractors face commercial pressure to reduce costs through means that may compromise quality. This dynamic operates regardless of whether construction methods are characterised as traditional or modern.
Digital tools and lean integration
Building Information Modelling and digital project management tools have emerged as significant mediators of the procurement-quality relationship. Mellado and Lou (2020) developed an integration framework demonstrating how BIM, lean principles, and sustainability objectives can be systematically combined to promote construction industry performance improvements. Their research highlighted BIM’s capacity to enable better visualisation of project progress, foster collaboration across supply chains, and provide data for continuous improvement.
Garcés and colleagues (2025) documented how BIM integration with lean methodologies reduces errors before on-site construction commences, representing a fundamental shift from reactive defect correction to proactive quality assurance. This synergy operates through improved coordination, enhanced design review capability, and real-time performance monitoring that enables early intervention when quality deviations emerge.
Likita and colleagues (2023) examined lean and BIM integration benefits in New Zealand construction management practice, confirming positive effects on project coordination and quality outcomes. Their research emphasised that digital tools amplify the benefits of collaborative procurement by providing the information infrastructure necessary for integrated decision-making.
Hei and colleagues (2024) provided case study evidence from Dezhou, China, implementing BIM and lean construction methods with attention to disassembly and reuse considerations. Their findings demonstrated improved performance across quality, environmental, and economic dimensions, supporting arguments for digital integration as a quality enabler across the project lifecycle.
Sustainability and long-term quality considerations
Contemporary construction procurement increasingly addresses sustainability alongside immediate quality outcomes. Waqar and colleagues (2025) evaluated the influence of modern construction methods on sustainable construction success, finding positive relationships when procurement frameworks explicitly incorporate sustainability criteria. However, their research also noted that sustainability considerations may compete with short-term cost objectives if not properly integrated into procurement incentive structures.
Hafiane, En-Nadi, and Ramadany (2025) systematically reviewed lean and circular economy integration in sustainable construction, identifying procurement as a critical enabler or barrier to circular approaches. Their analysis highlighted how procurement models emphasising whole-life value rather than initial cost better support materials recovery and reuse strategies.
Chen, Qiu, and Chen (2024) examined drivers, dilemmas, and countermeasures for integrating lean construction with sustainable construction objectives. Their research documented tensions between lean efficiency principles and sustainability investments, noting that procurement frameworks must explicitly value long-term quality and environmental performance to prevent sustainability considerations being sacrificed to short-term efficiency gains.
Geographic and contextual variations
The relationship between procurement models and quality outcomes exhibits significant geographic variation, reflecting differences in regulatory frameworks, industry structure, and cultural norms. Alnajjar, Atencio, and Turmo (2025) validated a construction lifecycle optimisation framework integrating lean construction, BIM, and emerging technologies specifically within the Saudi Arabian context, demonstrating that procurement innovations require adaptation to local conditions.
Ramesh and Swaminathan’s (2024) Indian construction industry research highlighted how alliance contracting operates differently in contexts with varying levels of institutional trust and contract enforcement capability. Similarly, Tabinga and Rupi’s (2025) Zimbabwean analysis documented how infrastructure investment constraints and regulatory capacity limitations moderate the effectiveness of procurement innovations.
Al-Bayati and colleagues (2022) surveyed practitioners regarding perceived causal effects of project delivery and procurement methods on construction project outcomes, finding significant variation in perceptions based on professional experience and organisational context. This research underscores that procurement model effectiveness depends not only on formal contractual structures but also on the capabilities, relationships, and expectations of implementing parties.
Discussion
The synthesised evidence strongly supports the proposition that modern collaborative procurement models reward quality outcomes when properly implemented, whilst simultaneously revealing persistent conditions under which corner-cutting remains incentivised. This dual finding reflects the complex, contingent nature of procurement-quality relationships and carries significant implications for theory, practice, and policy.
Mechanisms linking collaboration to quality
The evidence identifies multiple mechanisms through which collaborative procurement models promote quality outcomes. First, early stakeholder integration enables constructability input during design development, reducing the specification of details that prove difficult or costly to execute correctly on site. Fadnavis and Kim’s (2025) documentation of 38% design productivity improvements through early supplier involvement illustrates this mechanism’s quantitative significance.
Second, aligned incentive structures—particularly pain/gain sharing arrangements—create collective motivation for project success rather than individual party optimisation at others’ expense. When contractors share in project savings achieved through quality execution that minimises rework, the commercial case for corner-cutting diminishes significantly.
Third, transparency mechanisms inherent in collaborative models, including open-book costing and joint decision-making, reduce information asymmetries that enable undetected quality compromises. Digital tools amplify this transparency by providing shared access to project information and enabling real-time performance monitoring.
Fourth, relationship continuity in alliance and framework arrangements creates reputational incentives extending beyond individual projects. Contractors anticipating future work with the same client have strong motivation to maintain quality standards, whereas one-off competitive relationships lack this temporal dimension.
Persistent vulnerabilities and corner-cutting risks
Despite the positive trajectory towards collaborative procurement, the evidence identifies continuing vulnerabilities. The persistence of lowest-bid procurement in many contexts reflects institutional inertia, client capability limitations, and public sector procurement regulations that mandate competitive tendering without adequately specifying quality requirements. Maiti and De Almeida’s (2023) analysis documented how price-driven competition systematically undermines quality investment when alternative selection criteria receive insufficient weight.
The implementation gap between procurement model selection and operational reality represents a further vulnerability. Selecting collaborative contract forms does not automatically generate collaborative behaviours; organisational capabilities, relationship quality, and implementation discipline all moderate actual outcomes. Tabinga and Rupi’s (2025) Zimbabwean evidence demonstrated how modern construction methods within traditional delivery mindsets fail to realise quality potential, highlighting that procurement innovation requires accompanying cultural and capability development.
Resource constraints and competitive pressures may override formal incentive structures, particularly in economically stressed contexts or during market downturns when contractors face margin pressures. Even well-designed collaborative frameworks may prove insufficient when commercial survival pressures intensify.
The mediating role of digital integration
Building Information Modelling and associated digital tools emerge from the evidence as significant mediators of procurement-quality relationships. Digital integration supports quality outcomes through multiple pathways: enabling virtual construction and clash detection before physical work commences; providing shared information platforms that support collaborative decision-making; generating performance data that enables continuous improvement; and creating audit trails that support accountability.
However, the evidence suggests that digital tools amplify rather than substitute for appropriate procurement arrangements. BIM implementation within adversarial contractual frameworks may generate compliance without genuine collaboration, whilst collaborative intent without adequate information systems may lack the operational infrastructure for effective coordination. The optimal configuration combines collaborative procurement structures with digital enablement, as documented by Mellado and Lou (2020) and Garcés and colleagues (2025).
Implications for procurement practice
The evidence synthesis carries substantial implications for procurement practice. Clients seeking quality outcomes should explicitly consider procurement model selection as a quality management lever rather than defaulting to familiar approaches. Multi-criteria selection frameworks incorporating quality metrics, as developed by Assaf and colleagues (2023) and Ahmed and El-Sayegh (2024), provide systematic approaches to this decision.
Quality specification and verification mechanisms require attention regardless of procurement model selected. Even collaborative frameworks benefit from clear quality expectations, appropriate inspection regimes, and consequences for non-compliance. The evidence suggests that collaborative trust complements rather than replaces formal quality assurance.
Investment in digital infrastructure and organisational capabilities to utilise integrated project information supports quality outcomes across procurement models. Clients and contractors lacking such capabilities may fail to realise potential benefits from procurement innovations.
Theoretical contributions
This synthesis contributes to theoretical understanding of procurement-quality relationships in several respects. First, it confirms that incentive alignment operates as the primary mechanism through which procurement models influence quality outcomes, supporting agency theory predictions whilst highlighting their contingent nature.
Second, the evidence supports socio-technical systems perspectives emphasising the interaction between formal structures (contracts, digital tools) and social processes (relationships, trust, capabilities). Procurement models function within broader organisational and institutional contexts that moderate their effects.
Third, the synthesis identifies temporal dynamics in procurement-quality relationships, with collaborative approaches generating cumulative benefits through relationship development and learning that single-project procurement cannot access.
Limitations and evidence gaps
Several evidence limitations warrant acknowledgement. Longitudinal research tracking quality outcomes across project lifecycles and into operational phases remains limited, constraining understanding of whether procurement-related quality improvements persist over time. Liu and colleagues (2025) noted this gap in their systematic review of service quality models in construction.
Geographic concentration of rigorous research in developed economies limits confidence in findings’ transferability to contexts with different institutional characteristics. Tabinga and Rupi’s (2025) analysis highlighted how resource constraints and regulatory capacity limitations in developing contexts alter procurement dynamics.
Research examining corner-cutting directly proves methodologically challenging, as actors have strong incentives to conceal such behaviours. The evidence base therefore relies substantially on quality outcome proxies and self-reported data, which may underestimate corner-cutting prevalence.
Conclusions
This dissertation has critically examined whether contemporary procurement models in modern methods of construction incentivise quality outcomes or encourage corner-cutting practices. The synthesis of fifty peer-reviewed studies spanning 2016 to 2025 provides robust evidence addressing this question whilst identifying significant nuances and contextual dependencies.
The first objective, tracing the evolution of procurement models, has been achieved through documentation of the progressive shift from traditional design-bid-build approaches towards collaborative frameworks including Integrated Project Delivery, Design-Build, alliance contracts, and buildability-led procurement. This evolution reflects growing recognition that fragmented project delivery generates misaligned incentives and adversarial relationships detrimental to quality outcomes.
The second objective, examining empirical evidence regarding procurement-quality relationships, has been addressed through synthesis of multiple studies demonstrating positive associations between collaborative procurement and quality metrics including reduced defects, decreased rework, improved client satisfaction, and enhanced sustainability performance. The evidence strength supporting this relationship is substantial, drawing on diverse methodologies and geographic contexts.
The third objective, analysing mechanisms through which incentive structures influence behaviour, has been fulfilled through identification of multiple pathways including early stakeholder integration, aligned pain/gain sharing, enhanced transparency, and relationship continuity. Conversely, conditions fostering corner-cutting have been identified, particularly lowest-bid procurement without adequate quality specification and traditional mindsets persisting despite modern construction method adoption.
The fourth objective, evaluating digital tools and lean principles, has been achieved through documentation of BIM and lean construction as significant mediators of procurement-quality relationships. Digital integration enables proactive quality assurance through virtual construction, shared information platforms, and performance monitoring, whilst lean principles drive continuous improvement and waste elimination.
The fifth objective, synthesising actionable recommendations, has been addressed through practice implications emphasising procurement model selection as a quality management lever, multi-criteria decision frameworks, complementary quality specification and verification mechanisms, and investment in digital capabilities.
The central research question receives a nuanced answer: modern collaborative procurement models do reward quality outcomes, through mechanisms that align stakeholder incentives with project success and enable proactive quality assurance. However, corner-cutting risks persist where traditional procurement practices continue, where implementation quality falls short of model potential, or where commercial pressures override formal incentive structures.
Future research should address several identified gaps. Longitudinal studies tracking quality outcomes across project lifecycles into operational phases would strengthen understanding of procurement model effects’ durability. Research in developing economy contexts would enhance generalisability beyond the currently dominant evidence base. Investigation of human factors and organisational capabilities that moderate procurement model effectiveness would support implementation guidance. Finally, evaluation of regulatory and policy interventions supporting quality-oriented procurement would inform public sector practice.
The significance of these findings extends to multiple stakeholders. Clients can make more informed procurement decisions recognising quality implications. Contractors can understand the business case for collaborative approaches. Regulators and policymakers can refine procurement frameworks to better safeguard quality outcomes. Collectively, such developments promise continued progress towards construction procurement systems that reliably deliver lasting quality whilst resisting pressures towards corner-cutting.
References
Ahmed, S. and El-Sayegh, S. (2024) ‘Multicriterion Decision-Support Model for Selecting the Appropriate Delivery Method in Sustainable Construction Projects’, *Journal of Architectural Engineering*. https://doi.org/10.1061/jaeied.aeeng-1669
Al-Bayati, A., Kelly, D., Hasanzadeh, S. and York, D. (2022) ‘Practitioners’ Views Concerning the Causal Effects of Project Delivery Methods and Procurement Methods on Construction Projects’, *Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction*. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000742
Alnajjar, O., Atencio, E. and Turmo, J. (2025) ‘Real-World Validation of a Construction Lifecycle Optimization Framework Integrating Lean Construction, BIM, and Emerging Technologies in Saudi Arabia’, *Buildings*. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15162946
Assaf, M., Hussein, M., Abdelkhalek, S. and Zayed, T. (2023) ‘A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Selecting the Best Project Delivery Systems for Offsite Construction Projects’, *Buildings*. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020571
Awad, T., Guardiola, J. and Fraíz, D. (2021) ‘Sustainable Construction: Improving Productivity through Lean Construction’, *Sustainability*. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413877
Carvajal-Arango, D., Bahamón-Jaramillo, S., Aristizábal-Monsalve, P., Vásquez-Hernández, A. and Botero, L. (2019) ‘Relationships between lean and sustainable construction: Positive impacts of lean practices over sustainability during construction phase’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.216
Chen, Y., Qiu, D. and Chen, X. (2024) ‘Integrating Lean Construction with Sustainable Construction: Drivers, Dilemmas and Countermeasures’, *Sustainability*. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219387
Du, J., Zhang, J., Castro-Lacouture, D. and Hu, Y. (2023) ‘Lean manufacturing applications in prefabricated construction projects’, *Automation in Construction*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104790
Egan, J. (1998) *Rethinking Construction: Report of the Construction Task Force*. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Fadnavis, A. and Kim, Y. (2025) ‘Leveraging the Supplier’s Expertise Through an Innovative Organizational Structure’, *Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction*. https://doi.org/10.24928/2025/0198
Forcael, E., Burgos, A., Atencio, E., Rivera, F. and Valdebenito, R. (2025) ‘Lean Project Management From the Perspective of Enterprise Architecture’, *Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction*. https://doi.org/10.24928/2025/0283
Francis, A. and Thomas, A. (2020) ‘Exploring the relationship between lean construction and environmental sustainability: A review of existing literature to decipher broader dimensions’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119913
Garcés, G., Forcael, E., Osorio, C., Castañeda, K. and Sánchez, O. (2025) ‘Systematic review of Lean Construction: an approach to sustainability and efficiency in construction management’, *Journal of Infrastructure Preservation and Resilience*, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43065-025-00119-1
Goh, M. and Goh, Y. (2019) ‘Lean production theory-based simulation of modular construction processes’, *Automation in Construction*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.12.017
Hackitt, J. (2018) *Building a Safer Future: Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety*. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Hafiane, A., En-Nadi, A. and Ramadany, M. (2025) ‘Towards Sustainable Construction: Systematic Review of Lean and Circular Economy Integration’, *Sustainability*. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156735
Hei, S., Zhang, H., Luo, S., Zhang, R., Zhou, C., Cong, M. and Ye, H. (2024) ‘Implementing BIM and Lean Construction Methods for the Improved Performance of a Construction Project at the Disassembly and Reuse Stage: A Case Study in Dezhou, China’, *Sustainability*. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020656
Ibrahim, A., Zayed, T. and Lafhaj, Z. (2025a) ‘Trends and gaps in lean construction practices for construction of megaprojects: A critical review’, *Alexandria Engineering Journal*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2025.01.046
Ibrahim, A., Zayed, T. and Lafhaj, Z. (2025b) ‘A Comprehensive Model for Lean Construction Practices for Sustainable Megaproject Delivery’, *Sustainable Development*. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.70313
Jayasinghe, I., Domingo, N. and Le, A. (2025) ‘The evolving landscape of procurement methods in the construction industry: A literature review’, *CIB Conferences*. https://doi.org/10.7771/3067-4883.2031
Latham, M. (1994) *Constructing the Team: Final Report of the Government/Industry Review of Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the UK Construction Industry*. London: HMSO.
Lekan, A., Clinton, A., Fayomi, O. and James, O. (2020) ‘Lean Thinking and Industrial 4.0 Approach to Achieving Construction 4.0 for Industrialization and Technological Development’, *Buildings*, 10, 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10120221
Likita, A., Jelodar, M., Vishnupriya, V. and Rotimi, J. (2023) ‘Lean and BIM integration benefits construction management practices in New Zealand’, *Construction Innovation*. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-06-2022-0136
Liu, R., Sucala, V., Luis, M. and Khaled, L. (2025) ‘Systematic Review of Service Quality Models in Construction’, *Buildings*. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132331
Maiti, S. and De Almeida, N. (2023) ‘Discussion of procurement methods in the construction industry’, *InterConf*. https://doi.org/10.51582/interconf.19-20.04.2023.073
Mellado, F. and Lou, E. (2020) ‘Building information modelling, lean and sustainability: An integration framework to promote performance improvements in the construction industry’, *Sustainable Cities and Society*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102355
Meng, X. (2019) ‘Lean management in the context of construction supply chains’, *International Journal of Production Research*, 57, pp. 3784-3798. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1566659
Naoum, S. and Egbu, C. (2015) ‘Critical Review of Procurement Method Research in Construction Journals’, *Procedia Economics and Finance*, 21, pp. 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00144-6
Naoum, S. and Egbu, C. (2016) ‘Modern selection criteria for procurement methods in construction’, *International Journal of Managing Projects in Business*, 9, pp. 309-336. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-09-2015-0094
Osuizugbo, I. (2025) ‘Buildability-led procurement: a new model for future construction projects delivery’, *Construction Innovation*. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-10-2023-0272
Perks, M. (2023) ‘Developing a new procurement model, using behavioural economics, to enable continuous improvement of productivity and better value in large UK infrastructure projects’, *Revista Ingeniería de Construcción*. https://doi.org/10.7764/ric.00089.21
Ramesh, P. and Swaminathan, E. (2024) ‘A Synergetic Effect of the Integration of Lean, Sustainable Construction Practices and Alliance Contract on Operation Performance in the Indian Construction Industry’, *Sustainability*. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051857
Solaimani, S. and Sedighi, M. (2020) ‘Toward a holistic view on lean sustainable construction: A literature review’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 248, 119213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119213
Tabinga, V. and Rupi, M. (2025) ‘Construction for Successful Project Delivery in Zimbabwe: A Critical Analysis’, *Kuveza neKuumba: The Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University Journal of Design, Innovative Thinking and Practice*. https://doi.org/10.71458/5ydraq29
Waqar, A., Hajj, F., Danish, M., Khan, M. and Houda, M. (2025) ‘Evaluating the Influence of Modern Construction Methods on Sustainable Construction Success’, *Cleaner and Responsible Consumption*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2025.100327
Xing, W., Hao, J., Qian, L., Tam, V. and Sikora, K. (2020) ‘Implementing lean construction techniques and management methods in Chinese projects: A case study in Suzhou, China’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 124944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124944
Zhu, D., Rahman, M. and Khamis, N. (2025) ‘Quantifying the Impact of Lean Construction Practices on Sustainability Performance in Chinese EPC Projects: A PLS-SEM Approach’, *Sustainability*. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125665
