Best Practices for Case Studies in Construction

Engineering and Management Research

Lissa Gomes Araújo 1 and Gunnar Lucko, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Construction engineering and management research faces a fundamental dilemma: projects are designed and built just once. Case
studies, a qualitative research method, are an appealing choice that is suited to this unique reality. But the analytical training of engineers prefers
quantitative approaches, even if statistical questions of sample size arise. If carefully designed and executed, case studies can achieve general-
izability. Yet the larger question is how to optimally plan and implement them. This paper therefore makes four contributions: First, it quantifies
the growth of case studies and assembles definitions to illuminate their nature. Second, it creates a structured framework aligned to the Scientific
Method and extracts best practices from pertinent sources. Third, it exemplifies them on successful applications in recent construction studies to
inspire future studies. Fourth, it distills them into criteria to plan or evaluate quality case studies that academics and practitioners alike can use to
efficiently deploy this powerful research method. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002312. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
If we are concerned about the imprecision of case studies : : : ,
we can console ourselves by noting that a man named Darwin
was able to write about a study of the Galapagos Islands : : :
To the best of my recollection, there are no statistics in [his]
book. (Simon 1991, p. 128)
Construction projects are the arena for a vivid array of research
endeavors. Although each ultimately is unique, experience also tells
that commonalities abound in challenges and potential solutions
(Onder et al. 2010). Among the diverse research methods that have
been used to study technical or managerial aspects of construction
projects, case studies are an opportunity for construction engineering
and management to derive and convey new insights due to their
unique ability to bridge the divide between theoretically oriented
academicians and more practically oriented professionals. Moreover,
case studies are well suited to the nature of construction itself: each
project entails creating a facility by employing physical means and
methods with managerial plans and controls that are subject to a
unique set of requirements of constraints. In other words, a project
is a case. Conversely, experiments under controlled laboratory con-
ditions are almost impossible. Unsurprisingly, case studies have been
increasing among publications and should grow further in popularity.
Carefully selected, prepared, and presented cases of representative or
notable projects thus benefit a wider audience, who can draw insight-
ful parallels to delivering their own projects.
Yet what are features that all case studies should exhibit in their
planning and execution to be considered to have applied rigor and
1
Junior Assistant Researcher, Structural and Civil Construction Graduate
Program, Universidade de Brasília, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro,
Brasília, DF 70910-900, Brazil. Email: lissagomesaraujo@gmail.com
2
Professor and Director, Construction Engineering and Management
Program, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Catholic Univ. of America, Washington,
DC 20064 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002
-7355-3365. Email: lucko@cua.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 31, 2021; approved on
March 9, 2022; published online on May 18, 2022. Discussion period open
until October 18, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
achieved quality, and when and how are such features used properly?
Because case studies originated in the social sciences as a quali-
tative technique, their use faces challenges in the construction
domain, whose civil engineering foundation is quantitatively ori-
ented. Conducting case studies may not be trained in graduate pro-
grams, so that scholars may resort to their own interpretation and
intuition. It creates inconsistency in definitions, approaches, and
applications as well as in breadth and depth, and ultimately the rel-
evance of results that are gleaned off case studies. To foster the
quality and rigor of case study construction research, this meta-
study will compile best practice categories, illustrate them, and
establish criteria to guide future users.
Literature Review
Research Types
Research—the systematic creation of new knowledge—is often di-
vided into basic, i.e., solving an abstract problem without having
a specific application in mind, versus applied, i.e., addressing a real
problem within its particular context. Techniques are classified as
quantitative or qualitative, which Agyekum-Mensah et al. (2020) con-
trasted by pointing out that the former tests theories on hard numbers
to explain a behavior in a generalizable way, whereas the latter derives
theories from rich texts to gain a meaning that is transferable. These
types are not mutually exclusive and can be combined.
Quantitative studies are descriptive, relationship-extracting, or
theory-building (Borrego et al. 2009), often by statistical means
(Tran et al. 2014). Methods include randomized, controlled, or
grouped experiments, active pilot tests of a tool, or passive quasi-
experimental observation (Bernold and Lee 2010), a mixed tech-
nique that overlaps with case studies. But experiments are difficult
in construction (Yi and Chan 2014) due to the size, duration, and
cost of real projects that will be built only once, so that comparing
treatment options may be impossible. Simulation is a versatile
quasi-experimental technique that avoids such issues, but requires
a carefully built process model within the capabilities of a general- or
special-purpose software (AbouRizk 2010).
Qualitative data may include records (retrospective) of routine
operations (Westin and Sein 2014); short- or long-term observation;
purposeful (introspective) surveys, interviews, or expert elicitation

© ASCE 04022062-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062

 (Hallowell and Gambatese 2010); holistic ethnography (Borrego
et al. 2009) of sociocultural aspects (Phelps and Horman 2010);
and historical studies (Leonard and Nicholls 2013).
Justification and Need
As academia strives to meet evolving industry needs (Schweber
2015), research approaches need to be equally diverse to reach
practical solutions (AlSehaimi et al. 2013). It requires a thorough
understanding of the capabilities of potential research methods. But
quantitative and qualitative are viewed unequally as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
engineering research seeks to identify how outcomes : : : are
determined by reducing plausible causes to a discrete set
of : : : variables. Quantitative methods are a good fit for
deductive approaches. (Borrego et al. 2009, p. 54)
Engineers neither instinctively choose qualitative research, nor
prefer its inductive direction of reasoning. Misunderstanding its ef-
ficacy taints it further, and “authors have pointed out the danger in
assuming that qualitative research is easier and less rigorous than
quantitative research” (Borrego et al. 2009, p. 56), which is sim-
plistic and untrue.
This conundrum is especially severe for case studies, the focus
of this paper. Specifically,
Construction Engineering and Management (CEM) research-
ers most often receive their graduate education in colleges of
engineering that focus on quantitative and experimental meth-
ods; consequently, [they] have limited training in the case
study method. (Taylor et al. 2011, p. 304)
This causes two misconceptions: a perceived absence of
“statistical significance” in nonnumerical data, and an “insuffi-
cient precision” in seemingly informal procedures of case studies
(Taylor et al. 2011, p. 303). Responding to these concerns, Taylor
et al. (2011) collected case studies from the Journal of Construc-
tion Engineering and Management (JCEM) and provided a check-
list to “meet the burden of proof” at “levels of evidence” inspired
by court litigation. Checklist items ranged from general [seeking
reliability and internal and external validity, as well as construct
validity—that it “measures what it is supposed to measure”
(Lucko and Rojas 2010b, p. 132)], to specific (sharing raw data,
describing full analysis, and triangulating data types or sources for
content validity), or applying a new theory to a case beyond the
initial data.
But the larger question remains: what types of case studies exist,
each of which can address specific research objectives, and how
should they be designed and executed? This paper will attempt
to answer this question comprehensively. Its findings are hoped
to guide the planning and execution of future case studies and
aid their readers in evaluating their quality and rigor.
Methodology
This paper has the goal to foster the quality and rigor of case studies
by elevating awareness of their efficacious applications with a
structured compendium of best practices via a metastudy:
• Research objective 1: quantify the importance of case studies in
construction engineering and management by tracking their
growth and compile definitions from pertinent sources.
• Research objective 2: establish a structured framework guided
by the tenets of the Scientific Method and extract best practices
for case studies from pertinent primary sources into it.
© ASCE 04022062-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
• Research objective 3: illustrate variations therein by a diverse set
of successful applications in recent construction engineering
and management studies that exemplify each best practice.
• Research objective 4: distill the best-practices framework into a
set of criteria suitable for planning or evaluating quality case
studies, which academics and practitioners alike can use.
For reading convenience, Objectives 2 and 3 are alternatingly
addressed within each item text.
To achieve the first half of Objective 1, case studies in Automa-
tion in Construction (AC) (monthly) by Elsevier, Construction
Management and Economics (CME) (monthly) by Taylor &
Francis, and ASCE’s Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering
(JCCE) (bimonthly), Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management (JCEM) (monthly), Journal of Management in Engi-
neering (JME) (bimonthly), Journal of Civil Engineering Educa-
tion (JCEE) (quarterly) (formerly Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice), and Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction (PSDC) (quarterly), comprise
the final data set. Database searches have been performed for all
journals and years, but an initial review of library databases Scien-
ceDirect for AC, EBSCO Business Source Complete for CME, and
the ASCE Library has found that exporting citations from EBSCO
had a batch limit of 50 plus a publisher embargo on recent issues.
Because the ASCE (2019) online library cannot perform a multi-
Boolean search, its citations were obtained in spreadsheet format
from journals staff. Taylor & Francis Online, EngineeringVillage
with both Inspec and Ei Compendex, and Web of Science have
been reviewed. It was decided to use Compendex for citation re-
cords from both AC and CME.
A systematic analysis has been performed on records as follows:
Papers were labeled as case studies in the title, abstract, or key-
words. Confusingly, a separate Case Study type exists besides
Technical Paper and Technical Note, which was included as a
fourth field. Editorials, Forums, Discussions, Corrections, and
others were removed. Overall, the search string (type OR title OR
abstract OR keywords) containing (case study OR case studies) was
thus applied to all journals. Data have been current to the end of
2020. It is noted that an item that has been published online may
appear in a later print issue. The limitation is acknowledged that an
item may have escaped this mesh if was is not called case study (or
plural) within any of these four fields.
For the second half of Objective 1 and Objective 2, a collection
of 10 social science textbooks on designing and performing case
studies has been obtained: David (2007), Farquhar (2012), Gillham
(2000), Green (2011), Simons (2009), Swanborn (2010), Woodside
(2010), and Yin (2004, 2012, 2014). They have been scanned into
portable document format for full perusal by the authors, who have
marked chapters, pages, paragraphs, or sentences with pertinent de-
scriptions of case studies, their features, or specific advice on per-
forming them. These initial selections have been marked with
colored flags that name the topic read thoroughly. Next, they have
been retyped as text (preceded by the source citation including pag-
ination). This extraction has yielded 113 single-spaced pages of
notes.
Each entry has been categorized into draft topics: fundamentals,
purposes, definitions, differences from surveys, differences from
examples, types, scope, data, steps, advantages, critiques, gen-
eralizability, validation, evaluation, quantitative, theory-building,
analysis, report, best practices, degrees of freedom, and quotes.
Entries with citations have been resorted by these headings to guide
subsequent development of the framework. Due to overlapping
coverage by the case study textbooks and cross-referencing among
them, as well as necessary further winnowing to the most relevant
items, not all sources will be cited here. Particularly noteworthy
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 concepts and insightful quotations were highlighted for possible
eventual inclusion, paying attention to any parallels or contrasts
of different sources.
Final condensation of this material was performed in two steps,
first to derive the actual framework, and then during the actual
writing to weave earmarked preselected items into a clear yet
comprehensive text. The authors realized early in this process that
compiling advice on designing and conducting case studies touches
all aspects of the Scientific Method. Accordingly, the framework
has been explicitly aligned by its tenets in the chronological order
in which they are typically encountered. The framework has been
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
drafted by one coauthor, critiqued by the other, and refined in multi-
ple rounds to capture the richness of the previously extracted topics.
Moreover, a targeted literature search has been performed for pa-
pers on case study research by social scientists to round out the
coverage of individual topics and their best practices as needed.
Objective 3 had intended to obtain all case study papers of
16 construction journals and conference series (that were also ear-
marked for Objective 1) from which to select exemplary ones
across the area to illustrate best practices, but an initial estimate
indicated that this would be a massive corpus to assemble, whose
review would take many months to process. Therefore both the
publication list as well as coverage within them were narrowed
to just the aforementioned seven and the calendar year 2018 for
the corpus, which will be augmented with papers from recent years
in a targeted literature search if an application of a particular best
practice did not appear in 2018. Papers were downloaded in elec-
tronic format, labeled with authors last names, year, and full title as
the filename, recorded in a spreadsheet, and matched therein to
individual best practices. Because multiple papers may illustrate
the same best practice, a brief description of how it applies such
practice was written for each candidate paper, which were reviewed
and discussed by the authors to select two exemplars per best prac-
tice that will be presented herein.
Objective 4 was intended draw from the framework with the
best practices and the spreadsheet of all candidate papers to com-
pile a succinct checklist-style set of criteria, keeping its twofold
goal in mind of enabling a quick evaluation of prior case studies
as to their rigor, and guiding the design of future case studies to
achieve quality. For breadth, the set of criteria oriented itself along
the aforementioned tenets of the Scientific Method. For depth, it
was hierarchically structured in the same manner as the body sec-
tions of this paper, so that users can directly refer back to the frame-
work and its best practice exemplars to obtain details that apply to
their own case study. Criteria were phrased in the mandative sub-
junctive grammatical mood as recommendations. It is acknowledged
(a)
Fig. 1. (a) Case study percentage; and (b) annual papers.
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
that some criteria do not just apply to case studies, but may benefit
other research methods. This is unavoidable because case studies
encompass a diverse array of methodologies, but is not necessarily
detrimental because some case studies may even overlap with other
research methods.
It was briefly considered to end the paper with a new case study
that exhibits best practices, but it was quickly realized that that this
would exceed any reasonable page length for this paper. It is there-
fore acknowledged that attempts of addressing best practices for case
studies within the page length of a paper must necessarily strike a
careful balance between breadth (for theoretical comprehensiveness)
and depth (for practical relevance). The detailed methodology de-
scribed in the preceding paragraphs is hoped to give justice to the
vast and diverse family of methods that are case studies.
Context
Although quantitative papers dominate the construction literature
(Dainty 2007), about 1/3 of papers (Agyekum-Mensah et al. 2020)
employed qualitative methods. This was evident in the case study
area (alongside quantitative) in JCEM and submission type. ASCE
(2019, pp. 2–3) defined that “[c]ase studies describe a method or
application that illustrates a new or existing principle or presents an
innovative way to solve a problem. Ideally, results should have
broad implications and not be specific to only the case presented.”
They are a valuable tool in construction research because “methods
used by academics in CM (namely, surveys and case studies)
mostly are used to study phenomena that already has [sic] oc-
curred” (Yi and Chan 2014, p. 1), because “phenomena : : : are
often too large or too expensive to test in : : : experimental fashion
and the number of variables : : : can be too numerous for a mean-
ingful quantitative analysis” (Taylor et al. 2011, p. 304).
Growth of Case Studies
Given that scholars “have not yet defined case study research for
CEM or assessed the practice of case study research in the disci-
pline,” Taylor et al. (2011, p. 304) analyzed publishing trends in the
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management from 1985
to 2009, which had a steady increase from initially about one to two
papers per year, to about eight at the millennium, and some 17 per
year from 2004 onward. To update and broaden such data on their
increasing popularity, Fig. 1(a) shows the growth trend of papers
that considered themselves case studies (data in Table S1) as a
stacked area chart. Despite the significant annual fluctuations, per-
centages have all grown, even as total annual paper counts have
(b)
04022062-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 increased in these journals, as Fig. 1(b) shows. In 2020, they ranged
from 13% (AC) to 36% (JCEE); some prior years exceeded that
(47% in 2008). Although impressive, these statistics are seen in
the context of multiple ways to self-classify, which may have
caused the numbers to slightly overstate the number of case studies
that a more rigorous classification would count. The next section
will therefore attempt such a formalization.
Definition of Case Studies
Case studies describe a phenomenon (“to answer who, what,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where, when and how questions”); explain (“to answer the why
question”); predict future “states, behaviors, or events that will fol-
low within the : : : case”; or control “cognitions, attitudes, and/or
behaviors” by specific actions (Woodside 2010, pp. 11–12). They
also evaluate the efficacy of “programs, individuals, and settings”
to “identify : : : strengths and weakness and : : : lead to modifica-
tions and improvements” (Green 2011, p. 5). Overall, they seek
“deep understanding” (Woodside 2010, p. 6, emphasis in original).
Gillham (2000) reminded that actions must be explored within their
real context. David (2007) emphasized that “the case is context, not
content” to capture the richness of human actions over time or in
depth across a spectrum of aspects. Case studies thus contain multi-
ple variables and sources that must be integrated carefully (Simons
2009). Data must cover the variability of a phenomenon (David
2007), but are not samples in a statistical sense. As Radley and
Chamberlain (2011, p. 2) reiterated, one well-crafted case can suf-
fice because a “case study involves generalisation to theoretical
propositions, rather than to populations.” Recording a wide range
of observations—not unlike meticulously documenting an archeo-
logical dig—is paramount for ultimate quality.
An often-quoted definition (Yin 2012, p. 4) of case study is “[a]
n empirical inquiry about a contemporary phenomenon (e.g., a
“case”), set within its real-world context—especially when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evi-
dent.” Said case can either be a person, a group, or a behavior
thereof. Regarding application in construction, Taylor et al. (2011,
p. 304) clarified that they “study phenomena in a real-life project
where participants are making decisions about real issues that
impact such factors as time, cost, quality, and safety”. Together,
tracking the growth and establishing the definition of case studies
fulfills Objective 1.
Framework of Best Practices for Case Studies
The construction literature provides best-practice papers for major
managerial aspects, e.g., safety (Hinze and Hallowell 2013), in-
spections (Minchin et al. 2006), prefabrication (Said 2015), rapid
project delivery (Austin et al. 2015), or handling the pandemic
(Assaad and El-adaway 2021), but not usually research methods.
Yet a few metastudies listed trends, e.g., Bakht and El-Diraby
(2015) and Abudayyeh et al. (2004, 2006). Borrego et al. (2009)
gave a primer on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods in
engineering education. Abowitz and Toole (2010) advised on de-
signing mixed methods, which are among the tools to help achieve
validity. The noteworthy 2010 JCEM special issue on research
methodologies (Taylor and Jaselskis 2010) assembled over a dozen
how-to papers for qualitative and quantitative methods, which de-
tailed diverse approaches like optimization, experiments, empirical
studies, ethnography, charrettes, and the Delphi method, plus cross-
cutting ones, but did not specifically address case studies.
Best practices for specific research methods exist outside con-
struction, e.g., Draugalis et al. (2008) for surveys (amended in
Draugalis and Plaza 2009). McDonnell et al. (2000) discussed
© ASCE 04022062-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
issues like patient privacy for nursing and cautioned that plans
for a case study often must be adjusted to reality while performing
it. Besides overview articles (e.g., Turner and Danks 2014), books
on how to design and perform case studies exist. Chapters by
Hancock and Algozzine (2017) addressed types, literature reviews,
selecting a particular method, collecting and analyzing written and
oral data, synthesis, and validation. Their structure partially in-
spired the framework herein.
As the foundational concept for scholarly endeavor, the Scien-
tific Method is a suitable choice to organize best practices for con-
struction case studies. As the process for the systematic creation of
new knowledge, its tenets in the typical order of being performed
are as follows:
1. An initial catalyst or idea sparks the research question and its
context as the challenge.
2. A literature review surveys current knowledge and identifies
gaps or limitations that justify the research need, often in form
of a hypothesis.
3. Setting a goal as the strategic outcome and designing a meth-
odology as the research plan with tactical objectives to fulfill it,
disclosing assumptions, scope, and limitations.
4. Collecting and preparing data for analysis or model develop-
ment for experimentation.
5. Validation to substantiate the results.
6. Distill the contributions to the body of knowledge.
Aligning best practice categories to these steps reflects that the
challenge and literature review steps (Steps 1 and 2) depend on the
topic of a study, and that many best practices are methodological.
Categories were first classified under research design as (1) type;
(2) observations/sampling; (3) descriptive criteria; or under execu-
tion as (4) data; (5) validation; and (6) generalizability. Each tenet
informs its paired category without being exclusive, while also re-
lating to neighboring items. For example, the challenge may inform
selecting a case study type, and the methodology guides the re-
searcher what kinds of rich observations or samples will be ob-
tained. Fig. 2 graphs this new framework.
Having derived the framework via methodological steps as de-
scribed in the preceding paragraphs fulfills Objective 2. To popu-
late each category, a cross-validation was used. The literature on
case study design was searched for a particular keyword (and var-
iations), and recent case studies from construction literature were
reviewed for implementing said category. The authors collected
their corpus in 2019–2020 and thus focused on construction exam-
ples from 2018. Items that were developed were as follows:
1. Type entailed single versus multiple cases with three purposes
because “of 156 papers published in [JCEM] ( : : : ), 36 were
descriptive case studies, 87 were used to validate preestablished
models or theories, and only 33 were used to develop and/or
propose new models” (Taylor et al. 2011, p. 305). This paper
merged it with a distinction by Merriam (1998) as categorizing
whether the case study’s purpose was descriptive, explanative,
or evaluative, i.e., what happened, how/why it happened, or to
what extent it happened.
2. Data lists media in which they already exist or were created,
e.g., office records (in paper or electronic form); obtaining them
from human subjects in interviews or via surveys; making ob-
servations within their environment; or assembling or revisiting
a case, similar to the decision-making problems that business
case studies pose (called textbook-style herein).
3. Observations/sampling covers data types. They can be represen-
tative or extreme values; they can come from existing groups
(strata) that must be compared, at random from a larger set, at
a researcher’s convenience (but fulfill validity and generalizability
criteria), or may be created artificially, yet realistically.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Framework from metastudy of case study research.
4. Descriptive criteria are the criteria or screening process by
which a potential case is formally selected, a framework or pro-
tocol for the analysis, whether an instrument is open-ended, and
rich descriptions of the phenomenon of interest and its context.
5. Validation employs, e.g., mixed methods and other tools to add
trustworthiness through checks and balances, triangulation to
confirm results from several views, and rival theories or options
among which a leading explanation emerges.
6. Generalization documents the methodology (as a flowchart),
and how readers can transfer conclusions readers to new situa-
tions (lessons learned), a new theory that has been derived, a
model, or another framework that organizes the results and
makes them accessible.
Cases from the 2018 corpus were identified and screened to se-
lect one or two that exemplified each category; another year was
used if a case then better illustrated an item.
Case Study Type
First, researchers must decide if one or multiple cases will be
explored, based on the how a phenomenon under investigation
is represented therein. Yet, tailoring the research question and
methodology to data is possible: “Field procedures will not be to-
tally controlled in a case study as with an experimental design. The
nature of case studies is naturalistic” (Green 2011, p. 37). Studying
the cases gives feedback to refine the research design, adjust its
© ASCE 04022062-5
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
scope, or spark a qualitative study (David 2007). Case study meth-
odologies accommodate such flexibility (McDonnell et al. 2011).
Single Cases
A single case is significant because it constitutes the entire data
source. The “screening process will involve collecting sufficient
data to decide whether a case meets your pre-established criteria.”
(Yin 2012, p. 33) to achieve generalizability. It should offer varied
circumstances under which the phenomenon is observable. Ruiz
et al. (2018) employed a case study, the 1853 Contreras Pass in
Spain, in a novel manner for project-based learning in civil engi-
neering education. To address several stated academic goals to
learn about heritage infrastructure, students were equipped with de-
tailed materials like maps and monographs to prepare them for
fieldwork, in which they inventoried its geometry, materials, and
ancillary features, and created proposal for restoration projects with
viewing areas.
A more common use of a single case in construction literature is
to analyze the cost of a project or region, as Damnjanovic et al.
(2018) did for pavement marking maintenance for one road district
in Texas. Another recent single-case study focused on integrated
design for an emergency hospital of 1,000 beds in China, which
was built in 10 days (Tan et al. 2021). Their methodology flowchart
listed 18 semistructured interviews in addition to literature analysis
and focus groups.
Multiple Cases
Exploring several cases adds the ability to draw intercase compar-
isons, emulating a controlled laboratory experiment with treatment
and control; each case is analogous to an experiment. Johannes et al.
(2021) described criteria for selecting four specific cases, two in the
Netherlands and two in Australia, typical and extremes, to evaluate
the maturing of maintenance programs. Each of them contained
multiple buildings on these university campuses. Four dozen tran-
scribed semistructured interviews were coded for analysis, and the
findings regarding maturity were examined by experts in the valida-
tion phase. Similarly, Song et al. (2018) established criteria to select
public–private partnership construction projects in China to study
reasons for early termination and explored 23 cases through docu-
ment review and interviews for each, whose recordings were coded
and analyzed to extract 11 major influencing factors, for which coun-
terstrategies were proposed to lessen the risk of cancelation.
Descriptive
Descriptive (or illustrative) case studies paint a holistic image by
“extensive documentation, artifacts, and quotes and illustrate the
complexities of a situation” (Green 2011, p. 7), and may exemplify
it to create new theory (Simons 2009). To explore the shared lead-
ership of a research center, Chandler (2018) obtained Institutional
Review Board approval for her ethnographic approach as a peer of
the observed individuals. Three data sets, namely (1) field notes and
minutes over a year of planning meetings that prepared outreach
events, (2) observations at multiday summer programs orientations,
and (3) hour-long semistructured interviews with said individuals,
were combined, coded, and analyzed. She found leadership to be
“ongoing and evolving” (Chandler 2018, p. 9), inseparable from
management, influenced by gender, and strongly reliant upon com-
munication. Mazzetto (2018) described an educational case of a
collaborative project to prepare architecture and industrial engi-
neering students for future manager roles, which tracked learning
outcomes.
Explanative
Explanative (or heuristic) case studies try to understand why a phe-
nomenon is occurring (Green 2011). They must balance covering
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 “‘everything’ and being too sparse.” (Yin 2012, p. 49), i.e., richness
with succinctness. In “real-world settings, the explanations can be
quite complex and can cover an extended period of time” (Yin
2012, p. 89). Chan et al. (2018) sought to explain how accidents
happened on a bridge megaproject in Hong Kong. They combined
qualitative and quantitative data from official reports by government
agencies for falls, caught-between, struck-by, and other causes.
Tabulating the scenarios of nine fatalities, victim demographics, and
brief chronologies found drowning incidents as dominant. Preven-
tive recommendations were both general and specific with a caveat:
“Because fatality rates and accident rates measure the absence of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
safety, they may not be very reliable indicators to measure safety
performance” (Chan et al. 2018, p. 11).
Evaluative
Evaluative (or comparative) case studies measure the efficacy of a
program. But they must be communicated carefully because stake-
holders may be worried if an evaluation will have negative reper-
cussions. They should be informed of the intended benefits, and
(given their first-hand experience) ideally also give input into re-
search design (Green 2011). The evaluation itself may assess ad-
herence to objectives, aid decision making by managers, improve
customer experience, and others (Green 2011).
To quantify the cost of design errors in paper drawings versus
building information modeling (BIM) to justify investing in it, Ham
et al. (2018) created a methodology flowchart for a high-rise project
case study in Korea, which illustrated each step of their approach
graphically. Xu et al. (2018) compared the cases of two cities with
different adoption of BIM. They surveyed about 50 professionals
each at various regional BIM-related professional events and ex-
tracted via statistical testing how individual perceptions by these
persons shape implementation of BIM.
Descriptive Criteria
Criteria and Screening to Select Case
Several of the prior sections have opened the question of selecting
cases, which is best guided by establishing formal criteria a priori.
For a construction project, this should include both physical and
managerial characteristics like its industry sector and type, geo-
graphical region and location, complexity and size, risk level,
duration and budget, contractual delivery method, and others as rel-
evant to the case study’s topic. In other words, the criteria form the
justification why a particular case is explored. Describing criteria as
part of completely documenting a research methodology is vital for
potential reproducibility in the knowledge generation cycle by the
Scientific Method.
In some cases, they are integral to the purpose of a study,
e.g., Oo et al. (2018) invited all female domestic and international
students in their construction program to semistructured interviews
to identify factors that caused these persons to choose a career in
construction. Merschbrock et al. (2018) selected hospital projects
in Norway versus Australia to study BIM-enabled collaboration.
Protocol
Outlining the methodology begins at stating the research goal and
developing specific objectives that will be addressed. Each objec-
tive may require several steps or work tasks. These details of the
research design are cast into a protocol, “a mental framework, not
unlike similar frameworks held by detectives investigating crimes,
by journalists chasing a story, or by clinicians considered different
diagnoses based on a patient’s symptoms” (Yin 2012, p. 14).
Developing it may be an iterative process. For cases involving
© ASCE 04022062-6
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
human subjects, the protocol must undergo Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approval.
Ji and AbouRizk (2018) visualized their protocol for simulating
pipe welding, which acquired real-time data from an industry data-
base, in a concept chart plus a flowchart for data processing.
El-Diraby and O’Connor (2004, p. 113) designed a methodology
for collecting field data, from which they drew the key lesson to “[i]
ntertwine stepwise data collection with rigorous analysis.”
Ad Hoc Case
An interesting situation, which herein will be called an ad hoc case,
is when it is selected out of curiosity before a research question or
hypothesis has been formed. In other words, the case itself drives
the topic of inquiry and its selection is by its own unique appeal,
rather than by first establishing formal criteria. In that sense, open-
ended cases are exploratory in nature. Of course, the reasoning for
selecting such a special case for a study should be provided as jus-
tification. It is possible that the existence of a specific data set with
cost of nonconformance that one contractor had recorded may have
partially inspired the study by Love et al. (2018) into quality
failures.
Event/Behavior/Phenomenon Richly Described
One of the most important characteristics of case studies is
undoubtedly that they ought to richly describe what they seek
to study. Different from application cases and examples, which
may be introduced with a brief biography, describing the event,
behavior, or other phenomena is central to the informational
contents of the case study itself. Depending on the case study
type—descriptive, explanative, or evaluative—this description
may focus on characterizing the nature of said phenomenon, rea-
sons that cause it to occur, or changes therein relative to bench-
marks. Cimellaro and Domaneschi (2018) described their seismic
engineering course in such detail that other instructor could easily
adopt it. Gough et al. (2018) conveyed their case of journaling that
enhanced the learning in a study abroad course through vivid
excerpts of actual student entries.
Context/System/Environment Richly Described
The other half of the case study description itself is the context,
system, or environment within which the phenomenon is occurring.
It provides the background that brings realism to the case study. As
such, readers who are interested in applying the results from case
study research will turn to the context to understand how the case
study may transfer to their own scenario with its particular circum-
stances. A well-documented context thus strongly contributes to
generalizability, as Marques (2018) did by describing the eco-
nomic, political, and legal environment of his case.
Observations/Sampling
Sampling collects data from a population that cannot be captured;
whose size causes prohibitive time, cost, and effort; or because it
exceeds the temporal or geographic bounds of a study. It is guided
by collecting as few samples as possible, yet as many as necessary
for the phenomenon of interest to adapt Ockham’s razor that typ-
ically refers to modeling. Green (2011) cited Patton (1990) to list
diverse sampling types such as extremes (or outliers), or inversely
homogeneous, maximum variation, typical or critical cases, strati-
fication, snowball (chain) sampling, and more.
Typical
From the aforementioned quantitative training of engineers, it may
seem surprising that samples can be deliberately selected to be typ-
ical (as opposed to extremes), yet note that sampling is not in a
strictly statistical sense, but means broadly what cases and aspects
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 therein will be collected. A case can be typical in a physical or
managerial sense in one or more aspects, e.g., a familiar project
type like a residence or office building, or using a common delivery
method, and so forth. In other words, it would serve as an archetype
for a category that professionals would recognize. Presenting the
case of a 7-floor hotel with a typical design, Zhao et al. (2018)
demonstrated how their concept of “construction part” can aid
measuring construction productivity uniformly.
Extremes
Just like typical cases are valuable, so can be extreme cases that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
highlight either particularly successful or unsuccessful scenarios;
the latter could also counteract the confirmation bias in research.
Yin (2012, p. 49) noted that
Insights can then assume greater importance if the case being
studied : : : covers the following: situations not normally
accessible to social scientists (revelatory cases), instances of
exceedingly successful ventures (exemplary cases), one-of-
a-kind situations (unique cases), extreme conditions (extreme
cases), or even ordinary conditions (typical cases).
The aforementioned study by Johannes et al. (2021) effectively
contrasted typical and extreme cases. Kosonen and Kim (2018) pre-
sented a case of planning a wastewater treatment plant for a refugee
camp that was aided by flat communication structures, existing
expertise, and also improvisation.
Groups (Strata)
Sampling can target several categories within a continuum,
i.e., groupings within the data set of the case study that are similar
except for a single aspect. This is different from multiple cases that
are compared in their entirety. Stratified samples “identify com-
monalities among groups such as socioeconomic or political
groups. These groups are typically too small to generalize the re-
sults to a larger population but they do identify common issues that
may be useful for further testing” (Green 2011, p. 32). Brake et al.
(2018) exposed cohorts of freshmen, sophomore, and junior stu-
dents to a brief design-build-test project with carefully designed
pedagogical objectives and surveyed them before and after each
participation for their self-assessed attainment, compared with non-
treatment control groups. Lin et al. (2018) considered immigrant
workers versus native English speaking apprentices to study safety
training via two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) im-
ages that were designed to prevent falls through task analysis and
found the 3D ones to communicate more effectively.
Random
Perhaps the most familiar sampling from a statistical view is ran-
dom sampling. It gives an equal probability to any potential data
point from the population to be included and thus facilitates the
generalizability of results to said population. Although case study
research may select cases and data at random if many potential
choices exist that would serve the purpose of the study, it is a valid
methodology to employ purposeful random sampling (Green 2011)
that establishes criteria for selection, and only then applies them to
all potential cases or data to identify the ones to be used. An in-
teresting version of randomization is bootstrapping, i.e., random-
ized resampling, which was used by Zhou et al. (2019) within
their safety assessment method for subway station projects.
Convenience
Notwithstanding other considerations mentioned in this paper, it is
acknowledged that case study research needs to be performable
with reasonable effort, particularly regarding its location. Many
construction case studies are conducted through field visits to
© ASCE 04022062-7
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
ongoing sites. These are often run by regional industry partners.
Such personal relations can facilitate obtaining permission to
use them as a case study and aid in conducting it, e.g., if interview-
ing company staff. These factors typically favor projects that are
within proximity to a researcher’s home institution, but should
not preclude the possibility of travel to investigate particularly
unusual or innovative projects. Green (2011, p. 36) cautioned “that
there are typically no controls and they have little reliability” unless
care is taken to ensure the rigor of a convenience case, comparable
to using a single case. For example, Dika et al. (2018) deployed a
detailed survey to minority students within their own college on
motivating community and cultural factors, plus a focus group with
a subset. A group of nine companies affiliated with an applied re-
search center was tapped by Castillo et al. (2018) for a workshop,
survey, and interviews to rank performance indicators of manage-
ment practices.
Artificial
This item is included for completeness and refers to an application
case or example as has been explained in the previous subsections
about textbook-style cases. These can either be inspired by real
projects, often with simplifications and editorial adjustments to
make them suitable for being presented in a scholarly publication,
or they can be contrived to emphasize a phenomenon in a repre-
sentative or interesting manner. If so, their artificial nature should
be clearly disclosed. For example, France-Mensah and O’Brien
(2018, p. 8) revealed that the “models were implemented on a net-
work size of 50 flexible pavement sections, representative of a sub-
set network in Texas.” McWhirter and Shealy (2018) took a historic
park in Atlanta, Georgia, as the setting for fictional designs by stu-
dent teams who had to apply ASCE’s Envision rating system for
sustainable infrastructure.
Data Type/Source
Data are the fuel to drive the research engine, especially in case
studies that may employ a wide variety of collated types and
sources. A factor to consider is that data vary in their coverage,
relevance, and reliability (Gillham 2000). Given this, recall the ad-
vice on providing convincing evidence (Taylor et al. 2011) and that
“[t]he design that the evaluator selects depends on whether the re-
search question(s) indicate a study that will show a trend, illustrate
a process, convey status, or describe and analyze a program, pro-
cess, or procedure” (Green 2011, p. 54). Approval for using or
reusing data for the research purpose must be obtained from their
creator. Construction data may be confidential or proprietary,
e.g., schedule and budget details, so terms for their use must be
established. Such data-sharing agreements should describe how re-
sults can be disseminated. Funders like the National Science Foun-
dation require a data management plan; journals require a data
availability statement (de la Garza 2017) on recordkeeping, access
limitation, and storage.
Paper or Electronic Files
Archival data (in hardcopy or softcopy) are appealing, because they
are “unobtrusive” to obtain (Green 2011). Yet they pose a challenge
to construction researchers, because they were created for their
business intent with no concern of being suitable for study. In
the authors’ experience, real-world data tend to be fragmented
and incongruous. Ideally the business used data naming and struc-
turing conventions and reporting templates. Even better is if they
placed data into a corporate knowledge base to capture lessons
learned, but this appears to not be standard practice, likely due
to the ongoing effort to curate data, which should be automated
(Eken et al. 2015).
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Existing data often require extensive preparation to become usa-
ble for the research purpose (Lucko and Mitchell 2010a), whose
steps require understanding the process by which the data are rou-
tinely created originally, including the ranges, frequency, and units
of available data, as well as any unfamiliar terminology or abbre-
viations that may appear; scanning originals or extraction from
varied file formats or media; conversion into any new formats; tran-
scription or optical character recognition if needed; clearly labeling
and annotating each data type within the data set; perusing the data
to identify inconsistencies; filling any gaps using redundant sources
if possible; aligning data by matching time, space, party, or other
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
criteria; and verifying them before starting the analysis, which may
be partially automated for known properties of quantitative data, or
use triangulation from multiple somewhat redundant sources for
qualitative data. For a large corpus of written files, data-mining
techniques can be deployed. It is reasonable to initially assume that
data preparation, although of course being highly dependent on the
circumstances of the particular case study type, may require a com-
parable time and effort as the subsequent data analysis itself.
Antillon et al. (2018) studied management approaches and
structures for life cycle design by tabulating document types of
three cases of public–private partnerships, which they augmented
with 40 transcribed and coded interviews. Comparisons were made
within and between cases. Wondimu et al. (2018) also used docu-
ments and interviews to study how infrastructure projects can be
successful for six cases that used the new procurement method
of competitive dialogue.
Interviews/Survey
Interview and surveys constitute research on human subjects and
are subject to strict regulations [45 Code of Federal Regulations
(CRF) 46], coordinated by the research office of each university
by submitting the research protocol for IRB approval (or a waiver
for exempt categories with minimal risk). The principles apply that
researchers must minimize potential harm to subjects, especially for
personally identifiable sensitive data, only collect what is needed
for the research purpose; and protect data during their existence,
e.g., by anonymizing or compartmentalizing. Subjects must pro-
vide informed consent, participate voluntarily, and be able to with-
draw at any time.
Further considerations relate to the generalizability of findings
from construction interviews (in-person or call) or surveys (paper
or electronic). The instrument can be designed with closed- and
open-ended question types to capture the variation in the phenome-
non of interest and allow cross-checking responses. Questions
should cover the breadth and depth of a phenomenon, i.e., several
questions measure a variable, as exemplified by a comprehensive
survey on information technology (Davis and Songer 2009). The
instrument shall be pilot-tested for content validity, i.e., respondents
understand it within their “mental model” of reality (Woodside
2010) and it “measures what it ought to.” Types include true–false;
multiple choice; list, rank, or rate options (with an even Likert scale
to avoid a centrality bias to neutral answers); a short query, or a
longer prompt. Questions can study opinions, behaviors, expecta-
tions, or knowledge, but must avoid hypothetical scenarios that are
weak predictors. Whereas a survey collects the data, interview pro-
tocols must specify how notes or records are taken. Posing follow-
up questions is desirable.
Regarding applying the instrument, respondents must be se-
lected to have relevant expertise while also representing diverse
views for a comprehensive case study. Capturing their qualitative
and quantitative demographics (age, experience, and so on) are vital
data. Kaminsky (2021) noted the importance of reporting these to
properly situate the research and (given the lopsided traditional
© ASCE 04022062-8
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
industry demographics) urged to include gender, ethnicity, ability,
and language. Generalizability is usually limited to a geographic
region and timeframe. The population size and demographics
of potential respondents must be identified, and the required
response rate be stated in advance. Sample quality can be im-
proved by systematic sampling, stratification, clustering, or quo-
tas. Randomized selection is advised. The sample size needs to be
sufficient; studies like Lucko and Rojas (2010b) provided recom-
mended minimum sample sizes from a statistical view. Sending
reminders and offering participation-increasing incentives, e.g., a
prize raffle, is recommended.
Field Observations
Observations from construction sites differ in frequency and level
of detail by the technology to collect them, ranging from notepads
via stationary or movable cameras to advanced equipment, e.g., la-
ser scanners, to collect vast data sets that must be filtered (Huang
et al. 2021) to become first information and then knowledge.
They vary from being objective (e.g., stopwatches) to subjective
(e.g., note-taking) and are passive (e.g., remote sensing) or active
(e.g., work sampling). The protocol must consider that the IRB may
require disclosing the observing to those persons, which may alter
their behavior. Date, time, location, weather, and other such ele-
ments should be noted as context.
Visual observations may entail still photographs from inspection-
style walkthroughs, time-lapse, or sequences from video cameras or
airborne drones. Their field of view must be carefully chosen. Analo-
gously, for written notes the observer must be trained to record all
relevant facts. Both types require postprocessing, e.g., (audio)visual
data are watched and coded, which may be automated with image
recognition software. Notes are transcribed to undergo a content
analysis.
Simpson et al. (2018, p. 1) took their universities as the field and
filmed 12 groups, each of five students, with permission, in a
hands-on concrete seminar. Their observations identified “corner-
cutting, erroneous reporting, and misrepresentation of knowledge
and ability” as ethics issues. Chong et al. (2018) sampled asphalt
paving fumes of different worker tasks at 12 sites to hopefully
spark standardized measurement as well as guidelines to reduce
exposure.
Textbook-Style (New)
Case studies can be created specifically to illustrate or validate a
newly created theory or model. This use is common in construction
literature, but deviates from case study research by providing an
input to generate a testable output, rather than being the process
by which the research results are generated. This should be noted
in publications and is recommended to be called application cases
to distinguish them from conventional case studies. Application
cases often are textbook-style in that textbooks may feature longer
examples at chapter ends that integrate issues from that chapter
and pose several nontrivial questions. They are effective in dis-
seminating knowledge in a realistic way, similar to business novels
(Goldratt 1984) and business cases (Harvard Business Review
2021). They convey a decision-making situation as simulations in
the reader’s mind. They differ from examples, whose context is
often sparse and that often focus on correctly applying a quantita-
tive technique, e.g., a scheduling calculation. Terminology should
reflect this.
An interesting application by MacRobert (2018) created a com-
puterized assignment to teach students in a geotechnical course
about slope stability and measure their learning in three stages. Fard
and Nasiri (2018, p. 3) presented an “illustrative case study,”
i.e., small application example of refurbishing a building with
insulation, windows, and weather barriers to gain energy savings.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Textbook-Style (Prior)
It is valuable to reanalyze a previously published case with a new
theory or model. This may be an application case for which the
researcher offers a new approach or perspective or an example
for which a better solution of its time, cost, quality, safety, resource
use, throughput, downtime, and so on is found. A particularly
popular example in the construction context is the schedule of a
small bridge project with multiple productivities originally pub-
lished by Selinger (1980), whose reuse count stands at well over
a dozen. Later studies added features, e.g., cost, to its original data.
An et al. (2018) reanalyzed an example with bid values from the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
literature to demonstrate their method to identify unbalanced bids
by calculating a score from their individual line items.
Verification and Validation
It has been said “there is no shortcut to making a contribution to the
body of knowledge” (de la Garza 2021). This is certainly particu-
larly true for both verification and validation. Despite the confusing
alliteration, they differ substantially. Specifically, “verification is
concerned with ‘doing things right,’ while validation is focused
on ‘doing the right things’” (Lucko and Rojas 2010b, p. 128). Veri-
fication is done to create technically correct findings mostly based
on the researchers’ own judgement. On the other hand, validation
leads to practically useful findings by preparing them for accep-
tance by future users. Achieving both aspects together is called
accreditation (Lucko and Rojas 2010b).
Verification efforts relate to preventing, finding, or correcting
errors in data themselves, their preparation (as discussed previ-
ously), their analysis, and interpretation, or analogously—for
model-building studies—testing the inputs, algorithm, and out-
puts of such new model against expected behaviors. Verification
ensures the integrity a study from distilling raw data first into
information and then extracting knowledge or understanding.
As such, it encompasses processes and procedures that the re-
searchers apply to provide an error-free deliverable. Techniques
can be as varied as the actual research steps, and include, e.g., re-
peating critical steps (double-checking), perhaps deliberately
with a different method, using checksums for quantitative data,
and others.
Validation is a form of quality assurance within the research pro-
cess and thus is integral step of the Scientific Method (Lucko and
Rojas 2010b). Although it is listed as near last in the framework of
Fig. 1, this neither delegates it to lower importance than the earlier
steps, nor can it only be performed near the end the timeline. In fact,
validation should occur throughout all the steps of a research study.
It encompasses devising, documenting, and disclosing processes to
ensure that the findings are meaningful and relevant for the research
question (internal validity), and that others can apply them benefi-
cially toward their problems (external validity). As Simons (2009)
noted, validation builds credibility in readers’ minds about objec-
tive aspects of a methodology and any subjective choices in per-
forming it. Descriptions must be detailed in their substance, but
“[t]he length and density of most case studies test most readers’
patience,” so that “a generally accepted procedure is for you to de-
velop both a short and a long version of your case study” (Yin
2012, p. 102).
Mixed Methods
Arguing that “[c]onstruction is essentially a ‘social’ process” due to
its inevitable reliance on human actions and interactions in all of its
physical and managerial aspects, Abowitz and Toole (2010, p. 108)
embraced the use of social science tools to study it, especially
mixed methods:
© ASCE 04022062-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in re-
search design and data collection, : : : should be considered
whenever possible. Such mixed-methods research is more ex-
pensive than a single method approach, in terms of time,
money, and energy, but improves the validity and reliability
of the resulting data and strengthens causal inferences by pro-
viding the opportunity to observe data convergence or diver-
gence in hypothesis testing.
They clarified that a mixed method can be any combination of
multiple data types or analyses, e.g., triangulation, as is explained
in the following section.
Borrego et al. (2009) disagreed with claims that quantitative
and qualitative work are incompatible, semantically distinguished
mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) from multimethod
(several from one or the other or both), and provided examples from
engineering education studies that applied specific research de-
signs. Nguyen et al. (2018) used mixed methods by first compil-
ing financial risks in public–private partnership projects from the
literature, then surveying professionals in both public and private
roles and analyzing the responses statistically, and interviewing
them to deepen the understanding of risks. Fuller et al. (2018) also
mixed methods, first surveying contractors and state employees
on performance-based maintenance contracts, interviewing several,
and analyzing them for content.
Triangulation
Triangulation in surveying pinpoints a location from several
vantage points. This technique has inspired validation to confirm
findings from multiple data sources. The more they overlap as
“converging lines of evidence” (Yin 2012, p. 13), the stronger
the case study’s result (Gillham 2000). Both multiple cases and
mixed methods are ideal for this (Green 2011; Woodside 2010).
Papadonikolaki (2018, p. 6) explicitly triangulated (i.e., “support,
challenge, or enrich”) insights on motivation for and implementa-
tion of BIM from transcribed coded interviews of participants of
three Dutch projects with an analysis of various types of physical
and electronic documents.
Rival Theories/Options
It may be unexpected if a phenomenon is immediately explainable
with one unequivocal cause. Given the complexity of construction
projects, several explanations typically arise, called rival theories in
the literature. This would not indicate a lack of precision, but in-
dicate thoroughness in assessing potential factors. Yin (2014) noted
that although ideally they are mutually exclusive, they often par-
tially overlap. Evidence toward rejecting them should be collected,
akin to “rejecting the null hypothesis” in statistics (Yin 2014) to
build confidence in the nonrejected theory. For example, Maemura
et al. (2018) contrasted two Vietnamese cases that exhibited pre-
viously identified root causes of contract conflicts, namely politi-
cal, legal, administrative, contractual, motivational, and so on, with
three other project cases that each successfully avoided exactly one
such potential cause.
Generalizability
The ultimately value of research is creating transferrable insights.
This rests on comprehensively describing its methodology and
interpreting its findings. Following all steps in the reader’s mind
builds face validity (Lucko and Rojas 2010), i.e., believability. Cri-
terion validity is when the study is repeated and a new researcher
arrives at the same conclusion. Reproducibility is therefore a vital
characteristic of quality research, including case studies. General-
izability rest on all categories in the framework of Fig. 1. It is the
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 ability to apply results to explain or predict a new scenario.
Whereas statistics fine-tunes model parameters by “distilling data
into coefficients,” case studies identify constellations that tend to
have certain consequences (David 2007). Such absence of metrics
like probabilities, confidence, and prediction intervals, among
others, is not a lack of reliability. Any statistical forecast is just that,
a precise expectation of an uncertain outcome, after condensing its
natural variability into mean and variance. It requires detailed in-
puts to work. Its realization can fall anywhere inside or even outside
an expected range. Case studies avoid this “illusion of precision” by
keeping results at the level of the observations (David 2007). Case
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
study research can certainly be theory-building (Simons 2009) with
“generalisation to theoretical propositions, rather than to popula-
tions” (Radley and Chamberlain 2011, p. 2), as Yin (2012, p. 18)
clarified:
The first step involves a conceptual claim whereby investiga-
tors show how their study’s findings have informed the rela-
tionships among a particular set of concepts, theoretical
constructs, or sequence of events. The second step involves
applying the same theoretical propositions to implicate other
situations, outside the completed case study.
Methodology Flowchart
Ideally, researchers capture their methodology in an accessible for-
mat as a flowchart or list of steps. This research algorithm should
cover at least data collection and analysis, as Sepasgozar et al.
(2018) exemplified in their case study of construction technology
implementation from client and vendor perspectives. Going further,
Wang et al.’s (2018) case study of earthwork compaction quality
measurement showed snapshots of computer analysis in their flow-
chart, with details of data integration (preparation and calculations)
explained in a more technical flowchart.
Key Lessons
A straightforward outcome of case study research can be deriving
lessons learned, often within a dedicated section toward the end
of a publication, and in a descriptive yet succinct writing style
to allow readers to easily grasp and apply said lesson to their
projects, e.g., Marques (2018), after describing a legal dispute
case of a public–private partnership, drew lessons in a separate
section.
New Theory
Beyond lessons learned, discoveries may be cast into new theory.
Here, Yin (2018) distinguished factor, explanatory (asking how and
why), knowledge-driven, problem-solving, and social-interaction
theory. “Analytical induction : : : formulates a theory about a sit-
uation or phenomenon and then examines the data for a fit between
the theory and the actual data. ( : : : ) Grounded theory involves con-
stantly comparing themes within the data from interviews, obser-
vations, narrative data, note-taking, and informal conversations”
(Green 2011, p. 78) by interacting with data (Tie et al. 2019).
Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) listed challenges in theory-
building as single cases, providing rich evidence, building theory
(not just sense-making) from interviews, and stating its proposi-
tions explicitly, e.g., as a diagram. As Woodside (2010, p. 22)
noted, “it is impossible for a theory of social behavior to be simul-
taneously general, accurate, and simple.” Even better is to first build
theory and then test it on reserved data or cases for such validation
(Jaspers 2007). An interesting outcome of a study on resolving
financial conflicts (Jang et al. 2018) was casting the approach into
a game theory model with bargaining, ratification, and decision-
making steps.
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
Input–Process–Output Model
If the data within the case allow, it may be possible to derive an
input–process–output model that formally links causes and effects
and quantifies to what degree the former determine the latter. Such
deliverable can become a system dynamics model, for example,
like how Taylor and Ford (2008) derived from the case of a nuclear
power plant construction project and then simulated, finding a tip-
ping point. In another example, Charkhakan and Heravi (2018)
created and tested a model to calculate new detectability and track-
ability indices to assess how manageable scenarios of interrelated
risks are.
Other Framework
Analyzing a case can employ a framework (Green 2011, p. 69),
e.g., “a chronology, key events, various settings, people, processes,
and issues” or a degrees of freedom analysis, a “‘pattern-matching’
between theoretical propositions and observations in a set of data”
(Woodside 2010, p. 242). Another way is systems dynamics mod-
eling to structure how causal influences interact and whether they
amplify or dampen an element. Kalhor and Valentin (2018) pro-
posed a framework for integer programming of vulnerability and
property metrics to minimize the cost of wildfire-proofing residen-
ces, which they demonstrated on data from 19 neighborhoods in
New Mexico.
The comprehensive illustration of best practices with real stud-
ies has fulfilled Objective 3.
Planning and Evaluation Criteria
Case study research “helps managers and practitioners make sense
of real world problems” (Turner and Danks 2014, p. 24). This sec-
tion will address the last part of the research question, how should
case studies be designed and executed, by distilling general plan-
ning and evaluation criteria. Borrego et al. (2009) listed general
notions as validity, generalizability, reliability, and objectivity as
criteria for quantitative studies; and credibility, transferability,
dependability, and reflexivity for qualitative studies. For mixed
methods, they listed (1) mixed data collection, analysis, or interpre-
tation; (2) consistency in designing and performing; (3) basing the
design on authoritative references, justifying the approach, and
showing it graphically; and (4) acknowledging and addressing
challenges of mixed methods. Reviewing mixed construction stud-
ies, Abowitz and Toole (2010) reminded of careful research design
with early stakeholders involvement, defining constructs to be
measurable, operationalizing empirical measures to be reliable,
extracting potential causal relationships, and applying statistical
techniques mindfully. They felt that the typical paper length may
limit the richness of case descriptions and thus hamper their gen-
eralizability. Providing supplements, e.g., transcripts or surveys in
appendices, was advised.
Woodside (2010) discussed generality, accuracy, and complex-
ity, advising to “[c]ollect multiple instances of process data,”
“degree of freedom : : : tests to generalize single case data to
theory,” reinterviewing “during and after observing the process,”
triangulation, and employing systems dynamics to model com-
plex processes (Woodside 2010, p. 38). Green (2011) structured
advice into anticipation, visit, observation, conceptualizing, anal-
ysis, validation, and audience participation.
Combining the framework, its exemplification and the afore-
mentioned recommendations are now distilled into a Table 1
with planning and evaluation criteria that any case study should
exhibit.
Although it would exceed the page length to review all of the
previously cited exemplars vis-à-vis these criteria, most of these
04022062-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 1. Planning and evaluation criteria for quality case studies
Item Criteria Referencesa
1. Research goal Goal stated based on problem statement Chong et al. (2018)
Research question or hypothesis stated Davis and Songer (2009)
Methodology completely disclosed Kosonen and Kim (2018)
Objectives formally established Brake et al. (2018)
2. Literature review Case study topic covered to capture state-of-knowledge Taylor et al. (2011)
Relevant case study design and execution considerations El-Diraby and O’Connor (2004)
3. Methodology Described in sufficient detail to be replicable Ji and AbouRizk (2018)
Provide key materials (e.g., protocol, field notes, interview transcripts, survey Davis (2004)
responses, analyses, and so on) in appendices
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3.1 Type Justification for using single or multiple case studies Merschbrock et al. (2018)
States descriptive, explanatory, or evaluative purpose Chan et al. (2018)
3.2 Criteria Select cases via (at least implicit) criteria from multiple options or disclose if Johannes et al. (2021)
specific available case sparked its ad hoc study
3.3. Description Phenomenon of interest and its context (system) richly described Marques (2018)
Immersive style (different from small application example) Ruiz et al. (2018)
4. Observations/sampling Disclose if typical/extreme; stratified/random, representative or convenience Lin et al. (2018)
sample, or artificial date (or application example)
5. Data Specify if data are existing (e.g., paper or electronic files), created (interviews, Antillon et al. (2018)
surveys), or collected in the field (new observations)
5.1 Process Methodology addresses data creating, collecting, preparing Wang et al. (2018)
Describes steps taken to insure integrity of data set Zhao et al. (2018)
5.2 Instrument Open-ended data collection to capture diversity of phenomenon Chandler 2018
6. Analysis Explained from data origin to conclusions Nguyen et al. (2018)
Ideally visualized or flowcharted for clarity Tan et al. (2021)
6.1 Verification Explain data verification via error avoidance and correction Lucko and Mitchell (2010)
6.2 Validation Share how internal, face, or criterion validity (replicability) achieved Lucko and Rojas (2010)
6.3 Method State if method is quantitative, qualitative, or mixed Borrego et al. (2009)
6.4 Comparisons Strengthen findings by deriving from multiple observations/data types, Papadonikolaki (2018)
triangulating, cross-validating on extra data, or considering rival options
7. Generalization Cast findings into transferable insight by extracting key lessons, formulating Kalhor and Valentin (2018)
testable theory, describing input–process–output model, or creating formal
framework to apply to new scenarios
a
Nonexclusive selection, others case studies cited in this paper may also demonstrate an item.

case studies indeed address many of these criteria, in addition to Data Availability Statement
exhibiting the best practice under which they have been presented
in a particularly inspiring way. Having derived a succinct checklist All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
that balances breadth and depth has fulfilled Objective 4. appear in the published article.

Contributions to the Body of Knowledge Acknowledgments

This paper has made four contributions to the body of knowledge:
It has traced the impressive growth of case studies in the last 4 dec-
ades. It has compiled best practices from literature on research
design, especially the social sciences, where this research method
is prevalent. They have been organized along the tenets of the
Scientific Method. Moreover, it has demonstrated how such best
practices were applied successfully in a diverse set of recent con-
struction case studies to inform and inspire future research de-
signs. Finally, it has extracted all information into criteria that
users can use to plan a new case study to ensure its rigor or assess
an existing one.
Case studies are ideally suited to the nature of construction proj-
ects themselves. It is hoped that the contributions in this paper dis-
pel myths (Flyvbjerg 2006) and invigorate case studies to tackle
real-world construction problems with innovative and thought-
provoking research. Future work may explore how case studies
cannot just be the means of discovering new knowledge and gain-
ing understanding, but fulfill their potential as an avenue to com-
municate research results to professionals in a highly accessible
manner to find beneficial use in the construction industry.
The coauthors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable contributions
of Dr. Jessica A. Kaminsky at University of Washington regarding
developing the literature, methodology, and analysis, as well as
Ms. Julie M. Cook, Engineering Librarian, University of Washington,
and Ms. Xi Van Fleet, Senior Manager of Information Services,
ASCE, for their generous and patient assistance.
Supplemental Materials
Table S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary
.org).
References
AbouRizk, S. M. 2010. “Role of simulation in construction engineering and
management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (10): 1140–1153. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000220.
Abowitz, D. A., and T. M. Toole. 2010. “Mixed method research: Funda-
mental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research.”

© ASCE 04022062-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062

 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (1): 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000026.
Abudayyeh, O., A. Dibert-DeYoung, and E. J. Jaselskis. 2004. “Analysis of
trends in construction research: 1985-2002.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
130 (3): 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)
130:3(433).
Abudayyeh, O., A. Dibert-DeYoung, W. J. Rasdorf, and H. Melhem. 2006.
“Research publication trends and topics in computing in civil engineer-
ing.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 20 (1): 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0887-3801(2006)20:1(2).
Agyekum-Mensah, G., A. Reid, and T. A. Temitope. 2020. “Methodologi-
cal pluralism: Investigation into construction engineering and manage-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ment research methods.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 146 (3): 04020006.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001786.
AlSehaimi, A., L. Koskela, and P. Tzortzopoulos. 2013. “Need for alter-
native research approaches in construction management: Case of delay
studies.” J. Manage. Eng. 29 (4): 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000148.
An, X., H. Li, J. Zuo, O. Ojuri, Z. Wang, and J. Ding. 2018. “Identification
and prevention of unbalanced bids using the unascertained model.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (11): 05018013. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001563.
Antillon, E. I., M. J. Garvin, K. R. Molenaar, and A. N. Javernick-Will.
2018. “Influence of interorganizational coordination on lifecycle design
decision making: Comparative case study of public–private partnership
highway projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (5): 05018007. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000623.
ASCE. 2019. About ASCE journals. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Assaad, R., and I. El-adaway. 2021. “Guidelines for responding to COVID-
19 pandemic: Best practices, impacts, and future research directions.”
J. Manage. Eng. 37 (3): 06021001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000906.
Austin, R. B., P. Pishdad-Bozorgi, and J. M. de la Garza. 2015. “Identifying
and prioritizing best practices to achieve flash track projects.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 142 (2): 04015077. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001061.
Bakht, N. B., and T. E. El-Diraby. 2015. “Synthesis of decision-making
research in construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 141 (9): 04015027.
Bernold, L. E., and T. S. Lee. 2010. “Experimental research in construc-
tion.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (1): 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000085.
Borrego, M., E. P. Douglas, and C. T. Amelink. 2009. “Quantitative, quali-
tative, and mixed research methods in engineering education.” J. Eng.
Educ. 98 (1): 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01005.x.
Brake, N. A., M. Jao, and D. Su. 2018. “Integration of micro design-build-
test projects in instructor-centered courses to increase student confi-
dence.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (2): 05018002. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000355.
Castillo, T., L. F. Alarcón, and E. Pellicer. 2018. “Finding differences
among construction companies’ management practices and their rela-
tion to project performance.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (3): 05018003.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000606.
Chan, A. P. C., Y. Yang, and A. Darko. 2018. “Construction accidents in a
large-scale public infrastructure project: Severity and prevention.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (10): 05018010. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001545.
Chandler, J. L. S. 2018. “Leadership in action: Sharing leadership in an
engineering research center.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (4): 05018011.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000386.
Charkhakan, M. H., and G. Heravi. 2018. “Risk manageability assessment
to improve risk response plan: Case study of construction projects in
Iran.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (11): 05018012. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001562.
Chong, D., Y. Wang, K. Zhao, D. Wang, and M. Oeser. 2018. “Asphalt
fume exposures by pavement construction workers: Current status
and project cases.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (4): 05018002.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001454.
Cimellaro, G. P., and M. Domaneschi. 2018. “Development of dynamic
laboratory platform for earthquake engineering courses.” J. Civ. Eng.
© ASCE 04022062-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
Educ. 144 (4): 05018015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943
-5541.0000393.
Dainty, A. R. 2007. “A review and critique of construction management
research methods.” In Proc., Inaugural Construction Management and
Economics ‘Past, Present and Future’ Conf., edited by W. Hughes,
1533–1543. Reading, UK: Univ. of Reading.
Damnjanovic, I. D., A. Pike, and E. Martinez. 2018. “Analysis of
performance-based pavement markings and markers contracts: Case
study from San Antonio.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (2): 05017010. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000574.
David, M. 2007. Case study research. Volumes I-IV, reprinted 2007, first
published 2006. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Davis, K. A. 2004. “Information technology change in the architecture, en-
gineering, and construction industry: An investigation of individuals’
resistance.” Ph.D. dissertation, Charles E. Via Dept. of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Virginia Tech.
Davis, K. A., and A. D. Songer. 2009. “Resistance to IT change in the AEC
industry: Are the stereotypes true?” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (12):
1324–1333. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000108.
de la Garza, J. M. 2001. “Research publication ethics: Plagiarism, author-
ship fraud, fake conf., and predatory journals.” In Proc., Panel discus-
sion (virtual event), Construction Research Council, Construction
Specialty Conf. at the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering
Annual Conference. Montreal, Canada: Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering.
de la Garza, J. M. 2017. “Data availability policy.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
143 (3): 01616003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001263.
Dika, S. L., M. A. Pando, B. Q. Tempest, and M. E. Allen. 2018. “Exam-
ining the cultural wealth of underrepresented minority engineering per-
sisters.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (2): 05017008. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000358.
Draugalis, J. R., S. J. Coons, and C. M. Plaza. 2008. “Best practices for
survey research reports: A synopsis for authors and reviewers.” Am. J.
Pharm. Educ. 72 (1): 6.
Draugalis, J. R., and C. M. Plaza. 2009. “Best practices for survey research
reports revisited: Implications of target population, probability sam-
pling, and response rate.” Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 73 (8): S03. https://doi
.org/10.5688/aj7308S03.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and M. E. Graebner. 2007. “Theory building from cases:
Opportunities and challenges.” Acad. Manage. J. 50 (1): 25–32. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.
Eken, G., A. Bilgin, I. Dikmen, and M. T. Birgonul. 2015. “A lessons
learned database structure for construction companies.” Procedia Eng.
123 (Jan): 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.070.
El-Diraby, T. E., and J. T. O’Connor. 2004. “Lessons learned in designing
research methodology in field-based construction research.” J. Civ.
Eng. Educ. 130 (2): 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052
-3928(2004)130:2(109).
Fard, F. A., and F. Nasiri. 2018. “Integrated assessment-optimization
approach for building refurbishment projects: Case study of passive en-
ergy measures.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 32 (5): 05018003. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000785.
Farquhar, J. D. 2012. Case study research for business. Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. “Five misunderstandings about case study research.”
Qual. Inq. 12 (2): 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363.
France-Mensah, J., and W. J. O’Brien. 2018. “Budget allocation models for
pavement maintenance and rehabilitation: Comparative case study.”
J. Manage. Eng. 34 (2): 05018002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000599.
Fuller, J., C. J. Brown, and R. Crowley. 2018. “Performance-based main-
tenance contracting in florida: Evaluation by surveys, statistics, and
content analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (2): 05017021. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001429.
Gillham, B. 2000. Case study research methods. Reprint 2004. London:
Continuum.
Goldratt, E. M. 1984. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement. Great
Barrington, MA: North River Press.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Gough, H. L., N. Janega, and M. A. Dalo. 2018. “Journaling and reflection
as education tools for engineering study abroad.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ.
144 (4): 05018010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541
.0000375.
Green, R. A. 2011. Case study research: A program evaluation guide for
librarians. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Hallowell, M. R., and J. A. Gambatese. 2010. “Qualitative research:
Application of the Delphi method to CEM research.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 136 (1): 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0000137.
Ham, N., S. Moon, J.-H. Kim, and J.-J. Kim. 2018. “Economic analysis of
design errors in BIM-based high-rise construction projects: Case study
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of Haeundae L project.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (6): 05018006.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001498.
Hancock, D. R., and R. Algozzine. 2017. Doing case study research: A
practical guide for beginning researchers. 3rd ed. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Harvard Business Review. 2021. Case studies. Brighton, MA: Harvard
Business Review.
Hinze, J. W., and M. R. Hallowell. 2013. “Construction-safety best prac-
tices and relationships to safety performance.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
139 (10): 04013006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000751.
Huang, H., C. Zhang, and A. Hammad. 2021. “Effective scanning range
estimation for using TLS in construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
age. 147 (9): 04021106. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0002127.
Jang, W., G. Yu, W. Jung, D. Kim, and S. H. Han. 2018. “Financial conflict
resolution for public-private partnership projects using a three-phase
game framework.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (3): 05017022.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001442.
Jaspers, F. 2007. “Case study research: Some other applications besides
theory building.” J. Purchasing Suppl. Manage. 13 (3): 210–212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2007.09.012.
Ji, W., and S. M. AbouRizk. 2018. “Simulation-based analytics for quality
control decision support: Pipe welding case study.” J. Comput. Civ.
Eng. 32 (3): 05018002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487
.0000755.
Johannes, K., J. T. Voordijk, A. M. Adriaanse, and G. Aranda-Mena. 2021.
“Identifying maturity dimensions for smart maintenance management
of constructed assets: A multiple case study.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
147 (9): 05021007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0002112.
Kalhor, E., and V. Valentin. 2018. “Cost estimation framework for optimal
retrofit planning to mitigate residential building vulnerability to wild-
fires.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (4): 05018003. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001455.
Kaminsky, J. A. 2021. “Who are we talking to? Situating construction
engineering and management knowledge.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
147 (2): 06020003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001977.
Kosonen, H. K., and A. A. Kim. 2018. “Mental model approach to waste-
water treatment plant project delivery during emergency response.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (6): 05018005. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001488.
Leonard, K. M., and G. M. Nicholls. 2013. “History and status of female
faculty in civil engineering.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 139 (3): 218–225.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000152.
Lin, K.-Y., W. Lee, R. Azari, and G. C. Migliaccio. 2018. “Training of low-
literacy and low-English-proficiency Hispanic workers on construction
fall fatality.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (2): 05017009. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000573.
Love, P. E. D., P. Teo, and J. Morrison. 2018. “Revisiting quality failure
costs in construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (2): 05017020.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001427.
Lucko, G., and Z. W. Mitchell. 2010a. “Quantitative research: Preparation
of incongruous economic datasets for archival data analysis.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 136 (1): 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0000078.
© ASCE 04022062-13
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
Lucko, G., and E. M. Rojas. 2010b. “Research validation: Challenges and
opportunities in the construction domain.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
136 (1): 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000025.
MacRobert, C. J. 2018. “Introducing engineering judgment through active
learning.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (4): 05018009. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000382.
Maemura, Y., E. Kim, and K. Ozawa. 2018. “Root causes of recurring con-
tractual conflicts in international construction projects: Five case studies
from Vietnam.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (8): 05018008. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001523.
Marques, R. C. 2018. “Is arbitration the right way to settle conflicts in PPP
arrangements?” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (1): 05017007. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000564.
Mazzetto, S. 2018. “Multidisciplinary collaboration in project management
education: Practical approach.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (4): 05018014.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000391.
McDonnell, A., M. Lloyd Jones, and S. Read. 2000. “Practical consider-
ations in case study research: The relationship between methodology
and process.” J. Adv. Nurs. 32 (2): 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1046/j
.1365-2648.2000.01487.x.
McWhirter, N., and T. Shealy. 2018. “Pedagogy and evaluation of an en-
vision case study module bridging sustainable engineering and behav-
ioral science.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (4): 05018012. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000384.
Merriam, S. B. 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merschbrock, C., M. R. Hosseini, I. Martek, M. Arashpour, and G. Mignone.
2018. “Collaborative role of sociotechnical components in BIM-based
construction networks in two hospitals.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (4):
05018006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000605.
Minchin, R. E., T. Zayed, A. J. Boyd, and M. Mendoza. 2006. “Best prac-
tices of bridge system management—A synthesis.” J. Manage. Eng.
22 (4): 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2006)
22:4(186).
Nguyen, A., A. Mollik, and Y.-Y. Chih. 2018. “Managing critical risks af-
fecting the financial viability of public–private partnership projects:
Case study of toll road projects in Vietnam.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
144 (12): 05018014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001571.
Onder, N., A. Mukherjee, and P. Tang. 2010. “Construction management
applications: Challenges in developing execution control plans.” In
Proc., 20th Int. Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling. Menlo
Park, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
Oo, B. L., S. Li, and L. Zhang. 2018. “Understanding female students’
choice of a construction management undergraduate degree program:
Case study at an Australian university.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (3):
05018004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000365.
Papadonikolaki, E. 2018. “Loosely coupled systems of innovation:
Aligning BIM adoption with implementation in Dutch construction.”
J. Manage. Eng. 34 (6): 05018009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ME.1943-5479.0000644.
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly
Hills, CA: SAGE.
Phelps, A. F., and M. J. Horman. 2010. “Ethnographic theory-building re-
search in construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (1): 58–65. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000104.
Public Welfare. 2021. “45 CFR 46: Public Welfare, Dept. of Health
and Human Services, part 46: Protection of human subjects.”
Accessed July 14, 2021. www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/ohrp
/policy/ohrpregulations.pdf.
Radley, A., and K. Chamberlain. 2011. “The study of the case: Concep-
tualizing case study research.” J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
22 (5): 10. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1106.
Ruiz, R., A. Moyano, V. R. de Ávila, J. M. Coronado, and J. Rodríguez.
2018. “Heritage preservation training in civil engineering education:
Modern roads restoration projects.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (4): 05018008.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000381.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Said, H. M. M. 2015. “Prefabrication best practices and improvement op-
portunities for electrical construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 141 (12):
04015045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001018.
Schweber, L. 2015. “Putting theory to work: The use of theory in construc-
tion research.” CME 33 (10): 840–860. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193
.2015.1133918.
Selinger, S. 1980. “Construction planning for linear projects.” J. Constr.
Div. 106 (2): 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1061/JCCEAZ.0000877.
Sepasgozar, S. M. E., S. R. Davis, H. Li, and X. Luo. 2018. “Modeling
the implementation process for new construction technologies:
Thematic analysis based on Australian and US practices.” J. Manage.
Eng. 34 (3): 05018005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 06/26/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.0000608.
Simon, H. A. 1991. “Bounded rationality and organizational learning.”
Organ. Sci. 2 (1): 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.125.
Simons, H. 2009. Case study research in practice. Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE.
Simpson, Z., J. Bester, D. Swanepoel, and C. Westman. 2018. “Ethical de-
mand and first-year civil engineering study: Applying virtue ethics.”
J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (3): 05018006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI
.1943-5541.0000372.
Song, J., Y. Hu, and Z. Feng. 2018. “Factors influencing early termination
of PPP projects in china students through learner-centered teaching.”
J. Manage. Eng. 34 (1): 05017008. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000572.
Swanborn, P. G. 2010. Case study research: What, why and how?
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Tan, T., G. Mills, J. Hu, and E. Papadonikolaki. 2021. “Integrated ap-
proaches to design for manufacture and assembly: A case study of
Huoshenshan hospital to combat COVID-19 in Wuhan, China.” J. Man-
age. Eng. 37 (6): 05021007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943
-5479.0000972.
Taylor, J. E., C. S. Dossick, and M. J. Garvin. 2011. “Meeting the burden
of proof with case study research.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 137 (4):
303–311. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000283.
Taylor, J. E., and E. J. Jaselskis. 2010. “Introduction to the special issue on
research methodologies in construction engineering and management.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (1): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0000141.
Taylor, T. R. B., and D. N. Ford. 2008. “Managing tipping point dynamics
in complex construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 134 (6):
421–431. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:6(421).
Tie, Y. C., M. Birks, and K. Francis. 2019. “Grounded theory research: A
design framework for novice researchers.” SAGE Open Med. 7 (Jan): 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927.
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(8): 04022062
Tran, D., H. Lester, and N. Sobin. 2014. “Toward statistics on construction
engineering and management research.” In Proc., CRC, 1139–1148.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Turner, J. R., and S. Danks. 2014. “Case study research: A valuable learning
tool for performance improvement professionals.” Perform. Improv.
53 (4): 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21406.
Wang, J., D. Zhong, B. Wu, and M. Shi. 2018. “Evaluation of compaction
quality based on SVR with CFA: Case study on compaction quality of
earth-rock dam.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 32 (3): 05018001. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000742.
Westin, S., and M. K. Sein. 2014. “Improving data quality in construction
engineering projects: An action design research approach.” J. Manage.
Eng. 30 (3): 05014003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000202.
Wondimu, P. A., J. Lohne, and O. Lædre. 2018. “Competitive dialogue in
Norwegian public infrastructure projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
144 (10): 05018011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001540.
Woodside, A. G. 2010. Case study research: Theory, methods and practice.
Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Xu, J., R. Jin, P. Piroozfar, Y. Wang, B.-G. Kang, L. Ma, D. Wanatowski,
and T. Yang. 2018. “Constructing a BIM climate–based framework:
Regional case study in China.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (11):
04018105. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001568.
Yi, W., and A. P. C. Chan. 2014. “Alternative approach for conducting con-
struction management research: Quasi-experimentation.” J. Manage.
Eng. 30 (6): 05014012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000276.
Yin, R. K. 2004. The case study anthology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Yin, R. K. 2018. Case study research and applications. Design and
methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Yin, R. K. 2012. Applications of case study research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles,
CA: SAGE.
Yin, R. K. 2014. Case study research: Design and methods. 5th ed.
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Zhao, N., C. Kam, J. T. Y. Lo, J. I. Kim, and M. Fisher. 2018. “Construction
parts in building projects: Definition and case study.” J. Manage. Eng.
34 (4): 04018014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000616.
Zhou, Y., S. Li, C. Zhou, and H. Luo. 2019. “Intelligent approach based on
random forest for safety risk prediction of deep foundation pit in sub-
way stations.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 33 (1): 05018004. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000796.
04022062-14 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.