Research identifies core driving mechanisms and value-added pathways in government-invested EPC projects, suggesting improvements.
Government-invested Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) projects often encounter challenges, such as ambiguous value-added pathways and undefined key driving mechanisms, which impede efficiency improvements during implementation. To systematically elucidate the value-added pathways and core driving mechanisms in these projects, this study identified and distilled 20 critical influencing factors across four dimensions—contract cost, organization, technology, and environment—through a combination of a literature review, case analysis, and a questionnaire survey yielding 68 valid responses. Employing a DEMATEL–TAISM–MICMAC hybrid model, the research conducted an in-depth analysis: the DEMATEL method quantified the interdependencies among factors and identified key causal elements; a TAISM-directed topological hierarchy diagram was constructed to clearly delineate the hierarchical transmission pathways; and the MICMAC model was utilized for driver–dependency analysis, classifying factor roles and providing cross-validation from three analytical perspectives. The results indicate that S12 (collaborative participation in early planning and design phases) exhibits the highest causal influence and serves as the core driving factor, while S1 (detailed and explicit contractual clauses) and S12 are positioned at the root level of the hierarchical model, functioning as foundational independent factors that regulate the entire system. The value-added pathways are characterized by a hierarchical transmission logic of “root level → transitional level → direct level”. Based on these findings, the study proposes a system optimization strategy of “strengthening the root level, optimizing the transitional level, and safeguarding the direct level”, thereby offering both theoretical insights and practical guidance for enhancing the value-added efficiency of government-invested EPC projects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: