**7. Conclusions**

Scholars agree that the process of selecting construction procurement routes is not straightforward. Rather, it varies with project complexity, client type, and access to requisite information that drives project objectives. Understanding that the ability of CCs to make appropriate investment decisions is a critical factor that determines project success, the decision-making framework developed in this paper is capable of guiding CCs toward making informed decisions. This paper explored the literature to review the various categorizations of CCs, factors influencing the selection of procurement options, and some of the procurement choices available to CCs. It attests to existing arguments that there is a possibility of having more than one procurement route that will match specific client requirements.

While scholars have attempted to simplify the decision-making process for CCs, the practicality of the existing techniques have been challenged due to the dynamic nature of client objectives and the complexity of modern construction projects. Unlike previous scholarly contributions that are premised solely on clients' objectivity, this study acknowledges that clients' objectives are not static, and the reality of today's environment requires a flexible approach to CCs' decision-making. Therefore, adopting a mixed-method approach involving qualitative interviews and the MOO technique, this study leveraged CCs' experiences in selecting procurement routes through the value they attach to different project factors. Following the multiplicity of data gathered and evaluated in this study, this paper has achieved its aim of developing a framework (as shown in Figure 1) that provides different alternative routes to CCs, based on their experience and responses to the decision-making chart, used in rationalizing the significance of various procurement factors to specific project types.

The proposed framework applies to different real-life projects irrespective of project complexity and client categorization. It offers CCs a practical opportunity to be involved in the procurement process through a more in-depth approach that drives increased project success through effective collaboration and sustainable practices. Thus, enhancing and deepening their understanding of different procurement routes and their consequent contribution to project outcome. The framework also contributes to the ongoing debate on simplifying the construction procurement process by offering a platform for construction professionals and academics to drive innovation and best practices as a way of ensuring value for money in construction procurement.

Although this study offers a practical framework that is capable of guiding clients in selecting appropriate procurement options for different project types, the significance of the framework was not explored beyond the procurement context. The study scope is also limited to CCs in the UK and the decision-making framework itself will benefit from wider evaluation and validation across various case scenarios and different stages of project lifecycle. The effect of social, environmental, technological, and economic disruptions on the client's objectives and procurement path were also not covered in this research. Future studies should, therefore, consider the applicability of this framework across specific projects as a measure of the viability of project outcomes when compared to purely objective models. Researchers are also encouraged to investigate the effect of disruptions on CCs' procurement choices.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.B.; methodology, M.B.; software, M.B.; validation, M.B., S.A. and A.-R.A.; formal analysis, M.B. and A.J.; data curation, M.B., A.-R.A., S.A. and A.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, M.B., A.-R.A., S.A. and A.J.; supervision, A.-R.A.; project administration, M.B. and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Appendix A**

#### *Decision-making Chart*

'(&,6,210\$.,1\*&+\$57)25%5,(),1\*&216758&7,21&/,(17217+( \$335235,\$7(1(662)\$9\$,/\$%/(352&85(0(17237,216

#### **,17(59,(:\*8,'(**


1RWH7KHRYHUDOOVFRUHIRUHDFKTXHVWLRQLVDQGDUHVSRQVHRIDQGEHORZWUDQVODWHVWR³12´ZKLOHDUHVSRQVHDERYHPHDQV³<(6´

.H\3(3&3XEOLF([SHULHQFHG3ULPDU\&OLHQW

3(6&3XEOLF([SHULHQFHG6HFRQGDU\&OLHQW 3U(3&3ULYDWH([SHULHQFHG3ULPDU\&OLHQW

3U,6&3ULYDWH,QH[SHULHQFHG6HFRQGDU\&OLHQW

**Figure A1.** Decision-Making Chart.
