This study investigates the effects of the first phase of the Dutch two phase process project delivery method design on the information risk, the client-contractor
relationship and risk allocation between client and contractor. The two phase process is a collaborative project delivery method which is used for infrastructure projects with the objective to reduce information risk and stimulate cooperation between client and contractor. As this project delivery method is new, knowledge on the effects of the use of this project delivery method is limited.

Using desk and case study research with semi-structured interviews and an organisational behavioural theoretical lens, this exploratory research shows that the first phase of the two phase process project delivery method reduces the information risk, can make good cooperation between client and contractor possible and may help risk allocation between client and contractor. This study recommends public clients to think about the use of a two phase process project delivery method design carefully and incorporate mechanisms to end the first phase.

The current market forces of infrastructural projects in the Dutch construction sector necessitate public clients to divide a large-scale multidisciplinary project into multiple contracts. This causes diverse contractors to have to work simultaneously. Interfaces arise between the contracts, which require a deeper collaboration to align all activities. Coordination becomes a very important factor in such projects. Current attempts to create better coordination focus mainly on clients' contractual and organizational measures. This research aims to map the importance of the human aspect within coordination and help a client organize itself to create a better coordination process. This is done by looking at the contractual and organizational instruments that stimulate coordination. Hereby, the organizational measures are divided into relational, personal, and governance aspects.

Through a literature review, the steering mechanisms for good coordination within the contractual, relational, personal, and governance contexts were established. A case study provided the issues of coordination in practice and laid down the basis of possible instruments to help a public client with the coordination process. The main takeaways were the misinterpretation and misalignment of the specifications of agreements, choosing the wrong coordinator, the lack of attention to relations, and the unclear governance from the client’s side. After this, a preliminary framework of the coordination process was reviewed through expert sessions. Together, this created the basis for the final framework of this thesis.
The key findings of this research were the need to facilitate coordination and collaboration during the pre-execution through requirements in the contracts and a start-up period with the involved clients and the co-contractors. During the execution phase key findings were the need to facilitate coordination and collaboration by the attention to the human aspect and its process, besides aiming for the best project result. This research contributed to the current literature by showing how the current coordination processes of a public client within the Dutch construction sector lack attention to the human side during projects.

Better collaboration in the construction industry might lead to a more efficient construction process and a high reduction of failure costs. A model that tries to support collaboration, is a Bouwteam. In a Bouwteam, the contractor is already involved in the design process and shares his knowledge about the realization costs of the design and its execution. This makes it possible to design more cost-consciously and reduces the chance of adjustments during the execution. Although a Bouwteam offers many advantages, practice shows that collaboration within this model can still be improved. Several researches have been conducted about the collaboration in the Bouwteam phase, where client and contractor work together. However, no research has been done about the phase thereafter, the transition from the Bouwteam phase into the execution phase. Therefore, this research focuses on how client-contractor collaboration can be improved during the transition from the Bouwteam phase into the execution phase in a Bouwteam project.

In the Netherlands, projects often can be large and complex. This creates problems regarding the responsibilities and the distribution of risks of all parties involved in the project. It is therefore of great importance that the contracts and agreements made are clear and of practical use. In the Netherlands, the UAV-GC 2005 is used to regulate this. However, the UAV-GC 2005 turned out to contain several weak points and that is why in February 2021 a consultation version of the UAV-GC 2020 was presented to improve the UAV-GC. The question according to experts is whether this improvement will solve the problems concerning the distribution of risks and responsibilities. A possible solution to the problems is the NEC 4 ECC contract from the United Kingdom.
Therefore, the following research question was asked:

“What elements or characteristics of the NEC 4 ECC could be of added value to the UAV-GC 2020 for the Dutch construction market, and could possibly complement and be implemented in the UAV-GC 2020?”

During the study it appeared that the structure and clarity in the UAV-GC 2020 can be improved, especially in the division of risks and tasks, which can be better structured. Another improvement that can be made is the communication and provision of information because these are points where communication and provision of information fall short. Finally, the way in which payment is handled in the UAV-GC 2020 can be improved, as payment and costs in the UAV-GC 2020 are currently made and determined in advance and this can be done based on wrong or insufficient information. In the NEC 4 ECC, there are several payment methods and, based on the characteristics of the project, the appropriate payment method can be chosen. This seems to be a great improvement to the UAV-GC 2020, as the way payment is regulated in the NEC 4 ECC will improve cooperation between parties and reduce the likelihood of a dispute arising.

With the answers to the sub-questions and the main questions, it is possible to answer the general research question. It can be concluded that there are three important elements of the NEC 4 ECC that could improve the UAV-GC 2020 and thus be of added value. These are the obligation of communication and continuous provision of information, the various options in the NEC 4 ECC and especially the way in which payment is dealt with in the NEC 4 ECC. The way payment is handled in the NEC 4 ECC could help the UAV-GC with a better allocation of risk and responsibility. It also creates a better understanding of the project and better cooperation between the parties if necessary.

This research aims to overcome risk aversion by optimizing the allocation of risks in projects procured through an Innovation partnership. The research question answers: How can an Innovation Partnership stimulate innovation in the construction industry by dealing with uncertainties related to product innovation? The relevance of this research lies with the need for innovation in the construction industry to meet future sustainability and circularity goals and to renovate and replace existing infrastructure. However, due to the novelty of innovation, more uncertainty is introduced in a project where innovation is included. To stimulate innovation through an Innovation Partnership, the contractor and the contracting authority should manage the uncertainties related to product innovations following the level of uncertainties of the product innovation in the specific project stages. The level of uncertainty surrounding a product innovation reduces after the R&D phase of the Innovation Partnership. Therefore the contractor and the contracting authority should distinguish a difference between the R&D phase and the execution phase of an Innovation Partnership. It is recommended that when the contracting authority procures a project through an innovation partnership (1) they minimize the number of specifications and state the specification functionally to utilize the innovativeness of the market. (2) Stakeholders should be engaged in the project early on to overcome the resistance of stakeholders that are not ready for innovation. (3) The risks during the R&D phase should be managed by a design alliance. (4) The execution phase can be governed by an UAV-GC for the general project. In addition, an alliance module should be added for the risks related to the product innovation.