Benefits and Challenges of Early Electrical Contractors’ Involvement in Construction Projects

Abstract

The construction industry is currently facing several challenges, such as increased complexity, rapid technological development, and early retirements of experts. The involvement of knowledgeable contractors during early design will provide significant benefits, resulting in good-quality design and enhanced construction performance, particularly in specialized areas like electrical disciplines. In this study, the authors conducted a survey with 82 industry experts to identify the benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria of Early Electrical Contractor Involvement (EECI) in construction projects. The survey results indicate that the benefits of EECI outweigh the barriers. Cost savings emerged as the most significant benefit of EECI for most participants, while the requirement for a high level of cooperation and transparency was identified as the most challenging barrier. This study also revealed the discrepancies in the assessment of benefits and barriers of EECI based on the participant’s role. Additionally, collaboration and teamwork were identified as essential factors for the successful implementation of EECI. However, companies remain reluctant to change contracting methods, as they tend to adhere to familiar practices despite the potential advantages of EECI. This study validates the importance and effectiveness of EECI with regard to construction projects and contributes to the existing body of knowledge in early contractor involvement, electrical subcontracting, and design quality improvement. Furthermore, the outcome of this study provides industry practitioners with a better understanding of EECI and can also be used for education purposes.

1. Introduction

The construction industry, one of the largest industries in the U.S., is currently facing difficulties dealing with the increased size and complexity of projects, rapid technological development, knowledge gaps due to the labor shortage, and early retirements of experts. These challenges make it increasingly difficult to produce satisfactory design deliverables [1]. Achieving high quality in specialized disciplines, such as Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) systems, is particularly challenging. A previous study assessed the frequency of quality problems in relation to 84 common building design deliverables and revealed that low-voltage systems and electrical discipline drawings had higher problem rates than average [2]. Consequently, the number of change orders in electrical disciplines is substantially increasing due to the poor quality of design, leading to cost increases and schedule delays in construction projects.

To mitigate such problems, the construction industry has recognized the importance of integrating construction knowledge into the design process through early contractor involvement (ECI). ECI involves the early engagement of contractors/specialty contractors during a project’s planning and early design stages to assist the client and/or the designers with planning, constructability, and value engineering [3,4]. This approach helps to avoid time and cost overruns and improve the project lifecycle performance [5]. As previously mentioned, the electrical discipline is highly specialized, as electrical contractors possess valuable knowledge regarding the selection of materials, construction methods, and cost and schedule estimation [6]. Previous studies identified that early involvement of electrical contractors not only provides assistance in planning, constructability, material selections, cost and schedule estimation, or value engineering during the design phase, but also helps improve relationships with involved parties, increase profit margins, decrease documentation requirements, and construction administration, and reduce claims and lawsuits [5,7]. Ultimately, the involvement of knowledgeable electrical contractors in early design will offer significant benefits, resulting in high-quality design and enhancing overall project performance.

However, the traditional delivery method, Design Bid Build (DBB), separates the project phases and completes them in sequence. In this approach, general contractors and subcontractors are not selected until the design process is completed and the bid is accepted, which makes it difficult to incorporate inputs from construction experts during the design phase [8,9]. In other words, this separation prevents the early involvement of electrical contractors, which could otherwise improve the quality of electrical design through their assistance in constructability and value engineering. In addition, there are perceptions and challenges that impede the implementation of ECI in construction projects. Previous literature has identified several barriers to ECI implementation, including difficulties with responsibility allocation [10,11], lack of understanding of the benefits of ECI [5,12], lack of mutual trust and respect among the involved parties [10], lack of competitiveness compared to DBB [3], and lack of technical support [10,13]. Despite numerous studies on early contractor involvement (ECI) in construction projects, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no specific research has examined the impact of electrical contractors’ early involvement or how perceptions of EECI’s benefits and barriers vary by role. As the construction industry adopts advanced technologies and integrates complex electrical systems at increasing rates, understanding the critical role of electrical contractors in the early design phase becomes important. Their early engagement can significantly enhance coordination, optimize constructability, and improve overall project efficiency.

To address the gaps in the domain of ECI, this study has three primary objectives, as follows: (1) identify benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria of early electrical contractors’ involvement (EECI), (2) compare the perception of benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria by roles, and (3) explore the satisfaction level associated with EECI. To achieve these objectives, this study conducted a survey of industry practitioners and performed several statistical analyses on the survey results. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on early contractor involvement by exploring the benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria of EECI. Moreover, this study provides industry practitioners with a better understanding of EECI and offers guidelines for managing EECI in construction projects. Furthermore, this study highlights the opportunity to foster EECI, thereby improving the quality of electrical design and ultimately enhancing overall construction project performance.

2. Literature Review

The involvement of experts during the design phase of construction projects using alternative project delivery methods is well researched. There is extensive literature examining subcontractor involvement from various perspectives. Previous research in this area can be categorized into four main groups: (1) assessing the performance/value or identifying benefits of ECI, (2) exploring the perception of ECI, (3) investigating the contract/framework/procurement of ECI, and (4) utilizing technology in ECI on construction projects.

Research in the first group has focused on the performance and/or values of ECI implementation within construction projects. These studies, which often involve case studies, surveys, or extensive literature reviews, have found that ECI significantly improves project performance [5,14,15,16]. In 2009, Song et al. conducted a case study and simulation analysis and identified that ECI leads to improved design quality, material supply, information flow, and improved construction performance [5]. Another researcher evaluated the value of contractor involvement in the design phase with 404 transportation projects, 44 case studies, and the literature, concluding that ECI produces cost and time savings, and inherently enhances project quality by contributing to the development of effective construction documents [15]. Similarly, Lappalainen et al. [17] used both quantitative data and qualitative open-ended interviews to reveal that ECI improved design quality and constructability, and that in particular, it had a design-enhancing effect in the detailed design phase [17]. Meng and Humphreys [16] conducted a questionnaire survey and found that ECI significantly impacts cost and time performance. ECI not only improves design, cost, or schedule performance but also fosters collaborations among parties. Farrell and Sunindijo [14] reported that ECI allows clients, designers, and contractors to work collaboratively, resulting in improved performance. However, despite its numerous benefits, there are challenges associated with ECI, such as changes in relationship protocol and inadequacy of contractor remuneration [18]. Recently, Ishtiaque et al. [19] analyzed empirical data from 91 respondents and found that improved innovation, enhanced constructability, and greater collaboration are perceived as the most likely benefits of ECI. Additionally, their findings indicate that building projects are more likely to benefit from ECI, with project management professionals expressing the highest optimism regarding its advantages [19].

The second group of studies explored the perception of ECI. Rahman and Alhassan [3] identified that the contractors perceived ECI as an opportunity to foster better relationships among parties and successfully deliver projects. However, they also noted issues such as unequal commitment and a lack of a win–win attitude. Despite these drawbacks, contractors believe the benefits of ECI outweigh the challenges. In 2015, Francis and Kiroff [4] conducted a survey and semi-structured interviews with contractors and architectural designers to examine the attitudes and perceptions towards ECI. They found that ECI offers significant advantages over the traditional approach in terms of cost, design, and relationship factors. However, the results were inconclusive regarding the time and quality advantages.

The third group focused on the procurement, contracts, or frameworks of ECI. Laryea and Watermeyer [11] collected data from interviews, documentary analysis, and observations of an ECI session, and identified several conditions for successful ECI, including an intelligent client, a framework agreement, collaborative contracts, cost-based pricing strategies, professional team flexibility, and a committed contract. Some studies provide conceptual models for ECI. Rahmani et al. [20] proposed a conceptual model for selecting ECI for construction projects. This model integrates procurement selection criteria related to project characteristics, client objectives, and internal and external project environments with alternative selection approaches and practices. Likewise, Malvik et al. [21] also discussed the applied analytical model of ECI.

The last group explores the implementation of technology in ECI projects. Wang et al. [6] examined the potential and expectation of a BIM-based system for early collaboration among contractors, facility management, and design teams during the design phase. Through semi-structured interviews with 30 experts, they presented how BIM can facilitate knowledge management (KM) activities and address challenges. They also presented the conceptual framework of a BIM-based KM system for ECI and Early KM Involvement, encompassing technical, cultural, and process requirements. Another study by Moses et al. [22] used a literature review and case studies to explore the impact of 5D Building Information Modeling (BIM) on the offsite construction process. They revealed that 5D BIM and ECI can help manufacturers engage with the BIM process, improve the construction process, and subsequently save time and money. To explore the relationship between digital fabrication (DFAB), BIM, and ECI, Ng et al. [23] conducted a comparative study of four DFAB adoptions in an AEC project with varying levels of BIM and ECI implementation, and they presented a diagram with three integration perspectives (i.e., process, information, and organizational integration).

Even though many scholars have studied the ECI from various perspectives, there is a notable knowledge gap in this area, particularly regarding electrical disciplines. Electrical design documents require the expertise of educated and experienced subcontractors [24], as electrical systems and work demand close coordination with other systems and trades, such as structural, mechanical, communications, and interior finishes [25]. If incorrect electrical equipment is purchased due to inaccurate design specifications, expenses can escalate. Also, during field execution, electrical work, often driven by the work of preceding trades, faces challenges such as out-of-sequence work, congestion problems, uncertainties, and other resource constraints, which are difficult to predict during the pre-construction stage through a fixed master schedule [26]. Indeed, Mosey [27] highlighted that a procurement model excluding contractor and specialist designer construction could increase the risk of poor communication, unnecessary delays, and incorrect information leading to claims and disputes.

Despite the identified complexity involved in electrical works and the difficulties associated with achieving design quality in drawings and documentation, there are a lack of studies on ECI implementations that are specifically focused on electrical disciplines. By addressing this gap, this study aims to provide insights into the benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria of EECI and to offer valuable guidelines for industry practitioners to improve project outcomes through EECI implementation.

3. Materials and Methods

To proceed with the study, the authors first determined the scope of the study. This study focuses on three project delivery methods that allow the implementation of EECI including traditional Design Bid Build with Design Assist, Design Build, and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). In addition, this study is based on the three main components of construction project performance measurements: cost, time, and quality.

Based on an extensive literature review, the authors developed the survey items. Industry experts were then invited to review the survey and further refine it by modifying and adding to it so that it was better aligned with the scope of this study. The final survey consisted of five sections with a total of 51 survey questions: (1) background information; (2) benefits of EECI; (3) barriers to EECI; (4) key selection criteria; and (5) other questions.

Table 1. Number of survey questions in each section.

No.	Section	Number of Questions
1	Background Information	8
2	Benefits of EECI	18
3	Barriers of EECI	11
4	Key Selection Criteria of EECI	9
5	Other Questions	5
	Total	51

shows the number of questions in each section.

In the first section, there were eight questions that gathered background information on the survey participants. The next section contained 18 questions about the benefits of EECI, and in the third section, 11 questions addressed the barriers to EECI implementation on construction projects. In the fourth section, participants were asked nine questions about key selection criteria for selecting electrical contractors. The final section included five questions about participants’ overall options on EECI in construction projects, covering questions such as the overall performance of projects with EECI, their willingness to adopt EECI for future projects, and appropriate delivery methods. The survey participants rated their agreement level or the importance level of each question by using a five-point Likert scale. The survey also included an “N/A” option for respondents who were unsure about a specific question. This option was included to prevent random responses participants might otherwise select and to ensure that participants accurately interpreted the survey items [28,29].

After the survey questionnaire was developed, the survey was distributed via an online platform (i.e., SurveyMonkey) for easy accessibility. The survey targeted general contractors, owners, engineers, electrical subcontractors, and other specialty contractors who experienced EECI in construction projects. Responses were collected from 1 June to 21 December 2023. Following the conclusion of the survey, the authors conducted several statistical data analyses to derive insights from the data. First, they used the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to determine the distribution of data. Based on the test results indicating non-normal distribution, the authors proceeded with a Mann–Whitney test to compare the agreement levels between benefits and barriers. Additionally, Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted to examine differences across participants’ roles.

4. Data Analysis and Results

The authors invited a total of 96 industry experts to participate in the survey and received 82 total responses (i.e., 85.4% response rate). The participants were invited through industry connections and a snowball sampling approach. The sample included a diverse range of roles, such as engineers, construction managers (CMs)/general contractors (GCs), electrical contractors, owners, facility managers, owner’s consultants, and other specialty contractors, as shown in

Table 2. Survey participants by role.

No.	Role	Number of Participants	%
1	Engineer	12	14
2	CM/GC	23	28
3	Electrical Contractor	26	32
4	Owner/Facility Managers/Owner’s Consultant	8	10
5	Other Specialty Contractors	5	6
6	Others	8	10
	Total	82	100

. This diversity ensures that the survey captures perspectives from various key stakeholders involved in EECI, representing a broad cross-section of industry experts to provide valuable insights.

The respondents had an average of 24.8 years of industry experience. Out of the 82 valid responses, the distribution across roles was as follows: 12 engineers (14%); 23 construction managers (CMs) or general contractors (GCs) (28%); 26 electrical contractors (32%); 8 owners, including facility managers and owner’s consultants (10%); 5 other specialty contractors (6%); and 8 respondents categorized as ‘Others’, including risk managers, manufacturers, distributors, and surveyors (10%) (Table 2).

4.1. Benefits, Barriers, and Key Selection Criteria

In the first section, the survey participants rated the agreement level of 18 listed benefits of EECI on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1—Strongly disagree; 2—Disagree; 3—Neither agree nor disagree; 4—Agree; 5—Strongly agree; 6—N/A). The average rating for these questions was 4.29, with scores ranging from 3.70 to 4.63. This indicates strong agreement among participants regarding the benefits of EECI. Notably, cost saving through value engineering and a better understating of the right solutions/products received the highest score (i.e., 4.63); it was rated significantly higher than other benefits.

In the next section, the survey included 11 questions about barriers to EECI, and the participants used the same rating scale as in the previous section. The average rating for these questions was 3.52. It is noteworthy that barrier ratings were lower than those for benefits, indicating less agreement among participants regarding barriers. In other words, the benefits of EECI are more agreeable to participants than barriers. The highest-ranked barrier, scoring above 4.0, was “EECI requires a high level of cooperation and transparency”. Section 4 comprised nine questions assessing the key selection criteria for adopting EECI in construction projects, using a scale from 1 to 5 (1—Not at all important; 2—Slightly important; 3—Fairly important; 4—Important; 5—Very important). The average rating for these criteria was 4.29, with scores ranging from 3.85 to 4.70. “Trust and team orientation partnership” emerged as the most critical criterion, followed by “Performance history/Quality of work”.

Table 3. Top 5 ranked items in each section and their average scores.

Sections	Rank	Questions	Average
Benefits	1	Cost saving is possible through value engineering and/or a better understanding of the right solutions/products	4.63
	2	Electrical expertise is available to assist the designer and engineers during the design phase	4.45
	3	EECI achieves a high level of collaboration throughout the project providing better communication and an increase in reciprocal trust	4.40
	4	EECI allows an opportunity for the owner to secure experienced team members earl	4.38
	5	Risk can be mitigated early in the design phase of a project	4.37
Barriers	1	EECI requires a high level of cooperation and transparency	4.42
	2	EECI may be perceived as providing less competitive pricing	3.96
	3	Companies are reluctant to change contracting methods	3.95
	4	There is a lack of understanding of EECI and its benefits	3.74
	5	There is a lack of guidance available on managing EECI	3.60
Key Selection Criteria	1	Trust and team-oriented partnership	4.69
	2	Performance history/Quality of work	4.57
	3	Comfortable working in the conceptual stage of the design	4.54
	4	Technical capability	4.48
	5	Trained workforce	4.37

summarizes the top five benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria from the survey responses, along with their average scores.

4.2. Comparison Between Benefits and Barriers

To assess differences in the average agreement scores between two survey sections (i.e., benefits and barriers), the authors conducted the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to check for normal distribution of the data. The test results indicated that neither benefits nor barriers scores followed a normal distribution (p-value < 0.05). Consequently, the Mann–Whitney Test was employed to compare the agreement level between these two sections. The results revealed a significant difference at the 95% confidence level between the average scores for benefits and barriers (U = 403,025.5, p-value < 0.001), with a moderate effect size (r = 0.307). This statistical analysis indicates that survey participants reported significantly higher agreement on the benefits of EECI compared to its barriers.

4.3. Comparison Between Roles—Benefits, Barriers, and Key Selection Criteria

Next, to compare the differences in the responses across different roles regarding the benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria of EECI, the authors conducted Kruskal–Wallis tests three times due to the non-normal distribution of the data, as indicated by the Shapiro–Wilk test. For the benefits of EECI, statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in scores among roles (χ² = 111.081, p-value < 0.001). Effect size (η² = 0.07) indicates that there is a meaningful difference between groups. The “Electrical contractors” group had the highest mean rank score of 846.37, while the “Engineers” had the lowest at 558.71 (See

Table 4. Kruskal–Wallis test results comparing roles in each section.

Sections	Role	N	Mean Rank	df	χ2	p
Benefits	Engineer	212	558.71	5	111.081	<0.001 ***
	General Contractors	408	716.62
	Electrical Contractors	447	846.37
	Owners	129	581.87
	Other Specialty Contractors	90	635.68
	Other	139	680.56
Barriers	Engineer	132	482.85	5	14.054	0.015 *
	General Contractors	253	404.54
	Electrical Contractors	286	454.38
	Owners	83	490.25
	Other Specialty Contractors	55	462.19
	Other	81	424.04
Key Selection Criteria	Engineer	108	334.13	5	7.395	0.193
	General Contractors	207	383.45
	Electrical Contractors	234	373.09
	Owners	71	392.26
	Other Specialty Contractors	44	338.92
	Other	71	351.44

* significant at alpha level of 0.05. *** significant at alpha level of 0.001.

). This shows that electrical contractors had the most positive perception of the benefits of EECI. Also, differences in roles in terms of barriers to EECI were examined, revealing a significant difference in scores among roles (χ² = 14.054, p-value = 0.015). “Owners” perceived barriers most critically, with a mean rank of 490.25, whereas “General Contractors” had the lowest mean rank at 404.54. Another Kruskal–Wallis test assessed differences in roles concerning key selection criteria of EECI. Unlike benefits and barriers, there was no statistically significant difference in scores among the different roles χ² = 7.395, p-value = 0.193) with a small effect size (η² = 0.003). This indicates that all participants, regardless of roles, rated the key selection criteria of EECI similarly, indicating a general consensus on the importance of these criteria. Table 4 presents the results of the Kruskal–Wallis tests demonstrating role-based differences among survey participants in each section.

4.4. Other Questions

In the following section, participants answered five additional questions, and their responses were divided into two groups: (1) all respondents except electrical contractors (i.e., engineers, general contractors, construction managers, owners, other specialty contractors, and others) and (2) electrical contractors. The responses to the first four questions were compared between these groups using Wilcox–Mann–Whitney tests, as shown in

Table 5. Average ratings of the two groups for each question in the other section.

No.	Question	All Participants Except Electrical Contractors	Electrical Contractors	p
1	How satisfied are you with early electrical subcontractor involvement in construction projects? (1—Very unsatisfied; 2—Unsatisfied; 3—Neutral; 4—Satisfied; 5—Very satisfied)	3.77	3.54	0.718
2	How was the overall performance of the project with early electrical subcontractor involvement in construction projects? (1—Very unsatisfied; 2—Unsatisfied; 3—Neutral; 4—Satisfied; 5—Very satisfied)	3.74	3.85	0.315
3	What is your willingness to adopt early electrical involvement for your future projects? (1—Very unlikely; 2—Unlikely; 3—Neutral; 4—Likely; 5—Highly likely)	4.31	4.50	0.054
4	Please evaluate the level of challenge to adopting early electrical subcontractor involvement in construction projects (1—Strongly challenging; 2—Challenging; 3—Neutral; 4—Little challenging; 5—Not Challenging at all)	3.11	3.23	0.648

. The p-values for these questions exceeded 0.05, indicating no significant difference between the two groups in terms of their assessments. Notably, more than 60% of participants expressed satisfaction with EECI for construction projects, and more than 70% of respondents reported satisfaction with the overall performance of the project when EECI was implemented. Moreover, more than 90% indicated a strong willingness to adopt EECI for future projects. However, it was observed that more than 40% of survey respondents found the implementation of EECI challenging. Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the percentage distribution of responses between the two groups.

The last question in this section aimed to determine the most appropriate project delivery method for EECI, using a five-point Likert scale (1: Slightly; 2: Not at all; 3: Moderately; 4: Very; 5: Extremely). According to the results, the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) method is the most appropriate for implementing EECI, followed closely by Design Build (

Table 6. Survey results of the most appropriate delivery methods for EECI.

Project Delivery Method	Average	df	χ2	p
Integrated Project Delivery	4.06	2	1.79	0.408
Design Assist	3.90
Design Build	3.93

). Interestingly, there was minimal difference among these three methods, suggesting that EECI can be effectively integrated with these three methods.

5. Discussion

While EECI significantly benefits the overall performance of construction projects, some challenges remain with regard to its implementation. This study revealed six key highlights from the survey results.

First, the survey results showed that the perceived benefits of EECI generally outweighed the barriers. This indicates that most respondents recognize the clear advantage of EECI, agreeing that its benefits surpass its challenges. Specifically, the most agreed-upon benefit was that cost savings were achieved through value engineering and a better understanding of the right solutions/products. This benefit received a significantly higher score than the second-ranked benefits, underscoring its significance in EECI implementation. When electrical contractors are involved during the design phase, their primary responsibility is to enhance design quality, thereby minimizing reworks and RFIs in the field. Ultimately, these contributions during the design phase can lead to substantial cost savings.

Second, there was a notable discrepancy in how the benefits and barriers of EECI were assessed based on participants’ roles. Engineers and owners did not strongly agree with the benefits, while electrical contractors strongly agreed with them. In contrast, owners and engineers rated barriers highly, whereas general contractors ranked them the lowest. These differences in perspectives can be attributed to the diverse roles participants play in projects; some benefits or barriers may not be relevant to specific participants. For example, the survey revealed that the owner indicated “limited preconstruction personnel” and finding “the right time” as challenging factors which were not prominently ranked by CM/GCs. However, there was no discrepancy between the two groups when assessing the key selection criteria of EECI, indicating that all identified criteria are critical to all participants. Given that owners and engineers ranked the benefits lower and barriers higher, it is essential to demonstrate tangible benefits to them and provide strategies to mitigate these barriers.

Third, strong collaboration and teamwork were deemed the most important factors in all three areas: benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria. This shows that the organizational aspect is paramount, regardless of other considerations. Alternative delivery methods, such as Design-Assist, Design Build, or IPD engage subcontractors during the design phase. Given the unique nature of involving additional parties early on, collaboration and teamwork are crucial for achieving successful project outcomes. In essence, without robust collaboration and teamwork, achieving successful outcomes becomes extremely challenging. Therefore, it is important for electrical contractors to be highly collaborative and act as solution providers to gain the trust of the GCs and the owners. Moreover, demonstrating the value of commitment during preconstruction services is essential in EECI projects.

Fourth, despite the acknowledged benefits of EECI, many companies are reluctant to change contracting methods and proceed with alternative delivery methods. This reluctance often arises from a preference for traditional delivery methods and a tendency to stick with familiar practices rather than challenging new ones. In addition, adopting a new contracting method requires education, research, and overcoming a learning curve. As a result, even though companies recognize the benefits of EECI, they may be cautious about fully adopting it. To address this reluctance, specific procedures and guidelines can be provided to facilitate the transition. This includes offering training sessions, showcasing successful case studies, and providing a roadmap for implementing EECI effectively. This approach may encourage companies to overcome their hesitation and embrace EECI more confidently.

Fifth, the overall satisfaction level of EECI among participants was noticeably high. More than 60% expressed satisfaction with EECI implementation, and over 70% were satisfied with its overall performance. Additionally, more than 90% indicated a willingness to adopt EECI for future projects. Importantly, the study found no significant discrepancies in satisfaction levels between different roles, showing that despite specific barriers and challenges for certain participants, overall satisfaction with EECI and its outcomes remains high once implemented. This high level of satisfaction underscores the importance of education and accessible resources in promoting EECI in construction projects. In particular, maintaining records related to cost savings and schedule improvements achieved through EECI can further increase its adoption and success in future projects.

Lastly, IPD was identified as the most suitable delivery method for implementing EECI, followed by Design Build (DB), due to its ability to foster collaboration, transparency, and shared decision-making among stakeholders. Since EECI depends on early coordination and proactive problem-solving, IPD naturally aligns with these requirements.

The findings of this study emphasize that successful EECI implementation relies on strong collaboration and teamwork, both core principles of IPD and DB. To maximize EECI benefits, IPD or DB delivery methods are recommended, as they enhance collaboration, communication, risk-sharing, and constructability.

This study has significant practical implications for implementing EECI in construction projects. One key finding is that cost savings are a major benefit, reinforcing the need to document reductions through project records, case studies, and performance metrics. Demonstrating these savings can help the transition to EECI and encourage wider adoption. Ensuring that all stakeholders—owners, engineers, and contractors—clearly understand EECI’s benefits and processes is crucial for effective implementation. Structured training programs, workshops, and documented best practices can help bridge knowledge gaps and facilitate smoother adoption across the industry.

Collaboration and teamwork are fundamental to EECI’s success. Clearly defining roles, responsibilities, and expectations early in the project’s development improves coordination and constructability. Adopting collaborative contract models, such as IPD or DB, can facilitate early subcontractor involvement and create a more integrated project environment, as demonstrated in this study. Additionally, leveraging advanced technologies, such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), can also improve communication and decision-making, ensuring effective EECI execution.

A key barrier to EECI adoption is the need for owners to shift from traditional contract structures to more collaborative agreements, which can be complex and unfamiliar. A gradual transition, starting with pilot projects, can build confidence.

6. Conclusions

As construction projects have become more complex and complicated in recent years, achieving satisfactory design quality has become more challenging, particularly for specialized disciplines. Early involvement of subcontractors can significantly alleviate these challenges. Despite the recognized benefits of EECI, several obstacles hinder its implementation in construction projects. While some research has been conducted on early contractor involvement (ECI), there remains a gap in understanding regarding industry practitioners’ perceptions of EECI, particularly with regard to electrical contractors. As construction projects become increasingly complex and technologically advanced, the early involvement of electrical contractors is critical. Electrical systems are deeply integrated with other building components, requiring careful coordination to prevent design conflicts, enhance constructability, and optimize cost efficiency. Given the growing reliance on smart building technologies, energy-efficient systems, and advanced electrical infrastructure, engaging electrical contractors early in the design phase is essential to ensure seamless integration and reduce costly rework. To address the knowledge gap, this study explored the common benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria for implementing EECI in construction projects. This study aimed to provide insights into improved management practices for EECI and highlight industry practitioners’ perceptions.

To achieve the goal of this study, the authors conducted a comprehensive survey consisting of 52 questions and received 82 valid responses via an online survey platform. The survey findings indicate that the benefits of EECI outweighed the barriers. Among the 18 identified benefits, cost savings were perceived as the most significant, followed closely by the availability of expert electrical assistance during the design phase. Despite these advantages, companies exhibit reluctance to change their contracting methods. Furthermore, this study also highlights a discrepancy in how benefits and barriers of EECI are perceived based on role. Specifically, the engineers and owners did not strongly agree with the benefits, while electrical contractors rated them as particularly significant. Moreover, survey participants across roles consistently emphasized collaboration and teamwork as the most important factors with regard to benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria for EECI. Based on the survey findings, it was observed that over 70% of survey participants were satisfied with the overall performance of projects in which EECI was implemented. Additionally, more than 90% expressed a willingness to adopt EECI for future projects.

Based on these outcomes, the authors suggested establishing comprehensive records tracking the cost savings and schedule improvements achieved through EECI implementation. These records would not only serve as educational resources but also as tools to advocate for EECI in future construction projects. This study has certain limitations. First, it relies on self-reported survey data, which may introduce biases such as recall bias, subjective interpretation, and social desirability bias, despite efforts to capture diverse industry perspectives. Second, the study does not compare outcomes across projects with different scales, complexity levels, or delivery methods, as the survey reflects industry professionals’ cumulative project experience rather than data from specific projects.

Since cost savings emerged as the most significant benefit of EECI, future studies will focus on quantifying tangible cost savings from EECI implementation in construction projects through multiple case studies. This follow-up research will serve as a valuable resource for educating stakeholders by providing empirical evidence of EECI’s benefits. Additionally, future studies could explore variations in outcomes based on project type, complexity level, and project delivery method, further enhancing the understanding of EECI’s impact across different construction contexts. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on early contractor involvement by filling the gap of knowledge related to electrical disciplines by exploring the benefits, barriers, and key selection criteria of EECI. This research outcome will encourage owners and industry practitioners to engage electrical contractors early in the design phase by highlighting the benefits of EECI. This will not only benefit owners but also architects, engineers, general contractors, electrical contractors, and other subcontractors by clearly defining their roles and responsibilities in EECI projects. Ultimately, this study presents opportunities to promote EECI, enhance electrical design quality, and improve overall construction performance.