整合式採購與私人融資方案（PFI）通常被認為是用以開發更好建築務的途徑，這是基於以下的觀點：如能進一步改善加強合作、充分知識交流、最適化供應鏈及更少的交易上談判等方面的努力，即可促成更多準時竣工的建築物成品、成本更低、更具創新潛力且品質更好。然而，幾乎沒有完美的實證經驗證據可用於支持此一假設論點。關於此一課題的少數研究多半集中於土木工程領域，並且是透過訪談方式進行的研究，並沒有透過真正的各個建築專案進行比較研究。這或許是因為在建築施工上，建築專案、專案團隊及專案的環境都各有其不同的特殊性，因而難以進行比較。本研究專文則提出一項新的方法，可用於對各建築專案之成本與竣工時間進行客觀的比較，透過對六項荷蘭的建築專案進行個案研究，其中兩項建築工程專案採傳統簽約方式進行，其餘四項工程專案則採設計與建築的專案方式。結果我們發現上述兩類型的工程專案，在時間與成本成效方面有著截然不同的差異性。

Integrated procurement and private finance initiative (PFI) is often seen as the way to develop better buildings. It is assumed that the improvements in terms of enhanced collaboration, better knowledge exchange, supply chain optimizations and fewer transactional negotiations will result in more on-time deliveries, lower costs, better innovation potential and higher quality. However, there is little sound empirical evidence to support this assumption. The few studies on this issue were mostly in the civil engineering sector and were based on interviews rather than real project-based comparisons. This might be because in building construction, projects, project teams and the project environment are unique and therefore difficult to compare. This paper presents a new method that can be used to objectively compare building projects on cost and time delivery. It reports on six Dutch case studies, two of which were traditionally contracted, while four were design & build projects. Remarkable differences in time and cost performance were found between the two types of projects.