DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS DIVISION OF INNOVATION AND R&D MANAGEMENT CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2025 www.chalmers.se Organising for Circularity in Construction A Study of the Implementation of Reuse in Swedish Redevelopment Projects Master’s thesis in Design and Construction Project Management CLARA WETTERQVIST Organising for Circularity in Construction A Study of the Implementation of Reuse in Swedish Redevelopment Projects CLARA WETTERQVIST Department of Technology Management and Economics Division of Innovation and R&D Management CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2025 Organising for Circularity in Construction A Study of the Implementation of Reuse in Swedish Redevelopment Projects CLARA WETTERQVIST © CLARA WETTERQVIST, 2025 Department of Technology Management and Economics Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Gothenburg Sweden Telephone + 46 (0)31-772 1000 Gothenburg, Sweden 2025 Organising for Circularity in Construction A Study of the Implementation of Reuse in Swedish Redevelopment Projects CLARA WETTERQVIST Department of Technology Management and Economics Chalmers University of Technology SUMMARY The construction industry is a significant contributor to both greenhouse gas emissions and waste, and it is facing increasing pressure to reduce its climate impact. As a result, interest in the circular economy (CE) within the construction sector is growing. However, the transition towards circular practices remains in its early stages, and new workflows have not yet been fully established. This thesis investigates how circular practices – particularly the reuse of building products and components – can be effectively integrated into building transformation and redevelopment projects. The study explores organisational approaches to reuse, aiming to identify success factors and provide practical examples of methods and solutions, with a focus on contract types, procurement strategies, adaptations to the design and construction process, and the management of reuse-related challenges. The research was conducted as a multiple case study with an abductive approach, combining a theoretical framework with empirical data from 11 semi-structured interviews across three case projects. The findings show that both partnering agreements with design-build contractors and divided contract structures with traditional construction contracts can support reuse, though roles and responsibilities differ. Traditional contracts require clearly defined reuse requirements, while design-build contracts rely more on contractor incentives. Reuse also introduces new activities – such as inventory, disassembly, and quality control – that increase coordination needs and challenge traditional workflows. Moreover, the study identifies three main types of barriers to reuse: cultural, regulatory, and financial. Cultural barriers can be mitigated by fostering shared commitment and individual engagement. Regulatory barriers remain resource-intensive to navigate, suggesting a need for simplified regulations and clearer standards. Financial barriers, often tied to added labour costs, may be reduced through more efficient reuse processes. Ultimately, the findings of this thesis provide guidance on how reuse can be organised in practice, supporting stakeholders involved in future transformation and redevelopment projects in planning and organising for reuse. Keywords: building transformation, circular economy, contract types, design and construction process, organisation, procurement, reuse. Att organisera för cirkularitet i byggandet En studie av implementeringen av återbruk i svenska ombyggnadsprojekt CLARA WETTERQVIST Institutionen för Teknikens ekonomi och organisation Chalmers tekniska högskola SAMMANFATTNING Byggbranschen är en betydande källa till både växthusgasutsläpp och avfall, och står inför allt hårdare krav på att minska sitt klimatavtryck. Som en följd av detta ökar intresset för cirkulär ekonomi (CE) inom byggsektorn. Övergången till cirkulära arbetssätt befinner sig dock fortfarande i ett tidigt skede, och nya arbetsflöden har ännu inte etablerats fullt ut. Denna uppsats undersöker hur cirkulära arbetssätt – särskilt återbruk av byggprodukter och byggkomponenter – kan integreras på ett effektivt sätt i transformations- och ombyggnadsprojekt. Studien utforskar organisatoriska aspekter av återbruk i syfte att identifiera framgångs- faktorer och ge praktiska exempel på metoder och lösningar. Fokus ligger på entreprenadformer, upphandlingsstrategier, anpassningar i projekterings- och byggprocessen samt hantering av återbruksrelaterade utmaningar. Forskningen har genomförts som en flerfallstudie med en abduktiv ansats, där ett teoretiskt ramverk kombinerats med empiriska data från 11 semistrukturerade intervjuer med representanter från tre olika projekt. Resultaten visar att både samverkansavtal med totalentreprenörer och delad entreprenad med utförandeentreprenörer kan stödja återbruk, även om roller och ansvar fördelas olika. Utförandeentreprenader kräver tydligt definierade återbrukskrav, medan totalentreprenader i större utsträckning bygger på entreprenörens incitament. Återbruk introducerar också nya aktiviteter – såsom inventering, demontering och kvalitetskontroll – vilka ökar behovet av samordning och utmanar traditionella arbetsflöden. Vidare identifieras tre huvudsakliga typer av hinder för återbruk: kulturella, regulatoriska och ekonomiska. Kulturella hinder kan hanteras genom att skapa gemensamt engagemang och individuellt driv. Regulatoriska hinder är resurskrävande att hantera, vilket pekar på behovet av förenklade regler och tydligare standarder. Ekonomiska hinder, som ofta är kopplade till ökade arbetskostnader, kan minskas genom mer effektiva återbruksprocesser. Avslutningsvis bidrar uppsatsens resultat med vägledning i hur återbruk kan organiseras i praktiken, och kan därmed stödja aktörer i planering och organisering av återbruk i framtida transformations- och ombyggnadsprojekt. Nyckelord: byggprocess, cirkulär ekonomi, entreprenadformer, projektering, ombyggnation, organisation, upphandling, återbruk. Acknowledgements With the completion of this master’s thesis, my five years of studies in architecture and civil engineering at Chalmers University of Technology have come to an end. I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Petra Bosch-Sijtsema at Chalmers University of Technology for valuable feedback and support during my thesis project. I would also like to thank Anna Graaf at White Arkitekter for being available to discuss and exchange ideas. Finally, I would like to thank the participants of the interview study for taking the time to share their experiences and for showing great enthusiasm for the topics of reuse and circularity in construction. Gothenburg, June 2025 Clara Wetterqvist Glossary of Terms English Svenska Contract type Entreprenadform Design-build contract Totalentreprenad Traditional construction contract Utförandeentreprenad Type of procurement Upphandlingsform Divided contract Delad entreprenad General contract Generalentreprenad Partnering contract Samverkansentreprenad Pre-study Förstudie Program phase Programskede System design phase Systemhandlingsskede Detailed design phase Bygghandlingsskede Detailed development plan Detaljplan Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Aim ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Delimitations .................................................................................................................... 3 2. Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Circularity and Reuse in the Construction Industry ......................................................... 5 2.1.1 Definition of a Circular Economy ............................................................................. 5 2.1.2 The EU as a Driver Towards a Circular Economy .................................................... 6 2.1.3 Circularity in Construction ........................................................................................ 7 2.1.4 Barriers to Circularity and Reuse in Construction .................................................... 8 2.1.5 Enablers for Circularity and Reuse in Construction .................................................. 9 2.2 Organisation and Contract Relationships in Construction ............................................. 11 2.2.1 Contract Types and Project Delivery Methods ........................................................ 11 2.2.2 Procurement Strategies ............................................................................................ 12 2.2.3 Partnering ................................................................................................................ 14 2.3 The Design and Construction Process ............................................................................ 16 2.3.1 Integrating Reuse in the Design and Construction Process ..................................... 17 3. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Research Approach ......................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 19 3.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 20 3.4 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 22 3.5 Data Quality and Trustworthiness .................................................................................. 23 3.6 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................... 24 4. Case studies ......................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Lumi ............................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.1 Project Organisation and Procurement in Lumi ...................................................... 26 4.2 Werket............................................................................................................................. 27 4.2.1 Project Organisation and Procurement in Werket ................................................... 28 4.3 Trikåfabriken .................................................................................................................. 28 4.3.1 Project Organisation and Procurement in Trikåfabriken ......................................... 29 5. Results ................................................................................................................................. 31 5.1 Project Organisation ....................................................................................................... 31 5.2 Procurement ................................................................................................................... 33 5.3 Reuse Activities .............................................................................................................. 36 5.3.1 Reuse Goal Formulation .......................................................................................... 37 5.3.2 Inventory Process .................................................................................................... 38 5.3.3 Quality Control and Test Assembly ......................................................................... 41 5.3.4 Disassembly ............................................................................................................ 43 5.3.5 Reconditioning ........................................................................................................ 45 5.3.6 Design and Planning for Reuse ............................................................................... 45 5.3.7 Storage and Logistics .............................................................................................. 46 5.3.8 Reassembly .............................................................................................................. 48 5.4 Challenges and Success Factors ..................................................................................... 48 5.4.1 Culture and Collaboration ....................................................................................... 49 5.4.2 Regulatory Hinders ................................................................................................. 50 5.4.3 Economic Hinders ................................................................................................... 51 6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 53 6.1 Contract Types and Procurement Strategies for Reuse .................................................. 53 6.2 The Design and Construction Process for Reuse ........................................................... 57 6.3 Overcoming Barriers to Reuse ....................................................................................... 61 7. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 65 8. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 67 8.1 Future Research and Development ................................................................................ 69 References ............................................................................................................................... 71 Appendix: Interview Guideline ............................................................................................. 75 List of Figures Figure 2.1: The waste hierarchy. ............................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.2: The standard design and construction process. ................................................... 17 Figure 3.1: List of interviewees. .............................................................................................. 21 Figure 3.2: List of themes. ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 4.1: Pictures of Lumi before and after the renovation. ................................................ 25 Figure 4.2: Pictures of Werket before and after the renovation. ............................................ 27 Figure 4.3: Pictures of Trikåfabriken before and after the renovation. .................................. 29 Figure 7.1: Suggested guideline for selecting contract types and procurement strategies to support large-scale reuse in building transformation and redevelopment projects. ............... 66 Figure 7.2: Suggested process for reuse in building transformation and redevelopment projects. .................................................................................................................................... 66 1 1. Introduction This chapter first provides a brief background to the topic of circular economy in construction, leading to the aim of the thesis. It then presents the three research questions, followed by the delimitations of the study. 1.1 Background The construction and real estate sector is currently facing a major transition, where the climate impact must be drastically reduced in the coming years to meet established climate goals (Boverket, 2024c). A key part of this transition is shifting from a traditional linear economy to a circular economy (CE). A CE aims to minimise waste and emissions by replacing the linear ‘make-use-dispose’ model with circular systems (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). This shift is supported by strategies such as reuse, refurbishment, and recycling, which keep products, components, and materials circulating in the economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). In construction, waste reduction primarily involves extending the lifespan of buildings and components, as well as minimising non-recyclable waste during demolition and renovation (Göteborgs Stad, 2020). This is increasingly urgent, as the built environment accounts for nearly 50% of the materials extracted globally each year and contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2022). In Sweden, the construction and real estate sector is responsible for over 20% of domestic greenhouse gas emissions, along with further emissions generated abroad through imported goods (Boverket, 2024d). A large share of these emissions comes from the production of building materials. At the same time, the construction industry produces substantial amounts of waste (Boverket, 2024c). In 2020, the sector generated 14.2 million tons of waste, which accounted for about 40% of the national total (Boverket, 2024a). During the construction phase alone, 15–20% of the materials used can end up as waste, and most materials from demolished buildings are either landfilled or burned (Material Economics, 2017). The EU plays a leading role in advancing the CE, as it is a central component of the European Green Deal (European Commission, n.d.). For example, a new CE Action Plan adopted in 2020 2 aims to accelerate the transition and specifically highlights the construction and building sector as a priority area (European Commission, 2020). Although interest in CE within the construction sector is growing, Boverket (2024c) notes that the shift towards more circular practices is still in its early stages. The transition has begun through gradual processes, often via pilot projects, but new workflows and solutions have yet to be fully established. As a result, many stakeholders request practical examples and guidance on how to structure work processes. Such knowledge can help shift attitudes and accelerate the transition to a CE. While earlier studies (e.g. Hart et al., 2019; Gerhardsson et al., 2020; Ericsson et al., 2024) have focused on identifying barriers and enablers for circularity in construction, this thesis contributes by providing in-depth insights on how the implementation of reuse can be organised in practice. Although a bottom-up approach, with a focus on addressing barriers to circularity at the micro-level (i.e., individual projects or firms), has been recommended as the most suitable strategy for CE implementation in construction, this level remains the least studied (Ababio & Lu, 2023). Further research at this level is therefore essential to support the integration of CE principles into the design and construction process. 1.2 Aim This thesis aims to investigate how circular practices can be effectively integrated into building transformation and redevelopment projects, with a particular focus on the reuse of building products and components. To achieve this, the thesis describes and compares different approaches to organising reuse within such projects, with the goal of identifying success factors and providing practical examples of methods and solutions. This includes examining the type of contracts and procurement strategies used, how the design and construction process is structured and adapted for reuse, and how challenges related to reuse implementation are addressed. Ultimately, the thesis seeks to provide guidance and practical examples on how reuse can be effectively organised in redevelopment projects. In doing so, it aims to support stakeholders involved in the early stages of such project in planning and organising for reuse. 3 1.3 Research Questions To guide the research towards this aim, the following research questions have been formulated: RQ1: How have building transformation and redevelopment projects involving the reuse of building products and components been organised in terms of contract types and procurement strategies? RQ2: How does the reuse of building products and components influence the design and construction process in building transformation and redevelopment projects? RQ3: How can the barriers associated with reuse be addressed in future transformation and redevelopment projects? 1.4 Delimitations This thesis is limited to a Swedish context and is based on three case projects. To enable conclusions to be drawn about project outcomes, ongoing projects are excluded. At the same time, the selected projects must have been completed recently to ensure they reflect current practices. The focus is on large-scale transformation and redevelopment of commercial buildings – primarily office buildings – as these properties are likely to undergo regular renovations and modifications, for example, due to tenant adaptations. The scope is limited to the top two levels of the EU waste hierarchy: prevention and reuse. Consequently, recycling of building materials is excluded. However, the study does not differentiate between direct reuse (for the same function) and repurposing (for a new function). Furthermore, it focuses solely on the reuse of building products and components, excluding the reuse of furniture. Since the process of internal reuse within redevelopment projects can differ significantly from incorporating external reuse in new construction, the findings of this thesis are not intended to be generalised beyond this specific context. Additionally, as the study concentrates on processes and organisation during the design and construction phases, it does not consider aspects related to maintenance and facilities management – despite their potential relevance for reuse. 4 5 2. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework is divided into three main sections. The first section defines the concept of circular economy (CE) and situates it within the context of the construction industry, with a particular focus on the reuse of building products. The second section addresses organisation and contract relationships in construction, concentrating on contract types, procurement strategies, and the concept of partnering. The final section outlines the design and construction process – initially described in general terms and subsequently discussed in relation to reuse and circularity. 2.1 Circularity and Reuse in the Construction Industry The construction industry accounts for a large share of global resource consumption and waste generation, making it a key sector for the implementation of circular strategies (European Commission, 2020). This section introduces the concepts of circularity and reuse in construction, reviews definitions of a circular economy, and outlines the barriers and enablers associated with reuse in the building sector. 2.1.1 Definition of a Circular Economy According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015), a circular economy (CE) is an economic system that is “restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times” (p. 2). In their definition, a distinction is made between technical and biological cycles. This thesis considers only the technical cycle, which involves the management of stocks of finite materials. In this cycle, technical components and materials are reused, refurbished, and recycled to keep them circulating within and contributing to the economy – thus, use replaces consumption. The ultimate goal of the CE is to enable continued global economic development while reducing dependence on the consumption of finite natural resources (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). Similarly, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) define CE as “a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimised by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops.” (p. 759). This is supported by strategies such as long- 6 lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling. Another definition of a CE is provided by Kirchherr et al. (2017), who base their definition on an analysis of 114 existing CE definitions. They describe CE as “an economic system that replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes. It operates at the micro level (products, companies, consumers), meso level (eco-industrial parks) and macro level (city, region, nation and beyond), with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, thus simultaneously creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations. It is enabled by novel business models and responsible consumers.” (p. 229). Based on these three definitions, this thesis defines the CE as a restorative and regenerative economic system that aims to maintain products, components, and materials at their highest possible utility and value. This is achieved by replacing the ‘end-of-life’ concept with strategies such as reducing, reusing, refurbishing, recycling, and recovering materials – thereby keeping them circulating within and contributing to the economy. As a result, resource input, waste, emissions, and energy leakage are minimised. 2.1.2 The EU as a Driver Towards a Circular Economy According to Boverket (2024c), the European Union (EU) is a key driver in the transition to a CE. For example, the European Commission adopted a new CE Action Plan in 2020 as part of the European Green Deal. The plan aims to accelerate the transformative change needed to achieve a sustainable economic system, building on CE principles (European Commission, 2020). Moreover, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which entered into force in 2023, requires all large and listed companies to disclose information on the social and environmental sustainability of their activities (European Commission, 2024). According to Boverket (2024c), the CSRD is expected to promote increased reuse and the adoption of life cycle perspectives due to its strong emphasis on considering the entire value chain. Another relevant EU directive in this context is the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC), which includes a five-step waste hierarchy that sets the priority order for waste management. The preferred option is waste prevention, meaning that measures should be taken before a product becomes waste – such as extending its lifespan. The second priority is preparation for reuse, which involves enabling products to be used again for their original 7 purpose. The third is recycling – reprocessing waste into materials or products, either for the same or different purposes. Fourth is recovery, where waste serves a useful function, for example through energy recovery. Finally, if none of the above options are viable, disposal should be used as a last resort. This hierarchy is illustrated in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: The waste hierarchy (the author’s own figure). 2.1.3 Circularity in Construction In the context of the construction industry, Benachio et al. (2020) define the CE as “the use of practices, in all stages of the life cycle of a building, to keep the materials as long as possible in a closed loop, to reduce the use of new natural resources in a construction project” (p. 5). Such practices include designing for adaptability and disassembly, conducting life cycle assessments, creating material stocks, developing material passports, reusing building materials, deconstructing building components, and reducing waste. Among these, Benachio et al. (2020) found that the reuse of building materials was the most frequently studied area. Bellini et al. (2024) also note that the reuse of construction products is increasingly being explored as a strategy to achieve circularity. According to Gerhardsson et al. (2020), many stakeholders in the building sector have a positive attitude toward reuse and see potential for expanding its implementation in their work. Not least, it is viewed as an opportunity to position their organisations as leaders in sustainability and CE. Nevertheless, the actual level of reuse in current projects remains low. 8 Similarly, Guerra et al. (2021) observe that construction companies worldwide have started to embrace CE principles and incorporate them into their operations. However, while some circular business models are relatively easy to adopt, other models have seen a slower uptake across the industry. Moreover, a gap remains between the theoretical understanding of CE and its practical application; although many circular strategies and business models appear straightforward in theory, few have been widely implemented in practice. 2.1.4 Barriers to Circularity and Reuse in Construction Hart et al. (2019) identified four categories of barriers to implementing a CE in the built environment: cultural, regulatory, financial, and sectoral. Cultural barriers include a lack of interest, skills, and engagement; operating in a linear economy; and insufficient collaboration both between companies and across business functions. Regulatory barriers involve the absence of a consistent regulatory framework, obstructive laws and regulations, and a lack of incentives for CE. Financial barriers stem from short-term business focus, high upfront investment costs, low virgin material prices, unconvincing business cases and case studies, and limited access to funding. Sectorial barriers relate to the inherent characteristics of the construction industry, such as its conservative, uncollaborative, and risk-averse nature; the complexity of buildings; long product lifecycles; and a lack of standardisation. More recently, similar efforts to categorise barriers to CE in construction have been made by AlJaber et al. (2023) and Ababio and Lu (2023). Based on a systematic literature review, AlJaber et al. (2023) identified six main categories: awareness, technical, economic and market, implementation, support/promotion, and social barriers. Within these, the five major barriers were the absence of comprehensive CE policies and legislation, a fragmented supply chain, high upfront investment costs, a conservative and non-collaborative mindset, and a general lack of interest in adopting CE principles. These barriers closely align with the categories proposed by Hart et al. (2019). Similarly, Ababio and Lu (2023) identified five categories: social and cultural, political and legislative, financial and economic, technological, and framework- and theory-related barriers. At the micro-level – referring to individual firms or projects – they found that social/cultural and financial/economic barriers were the most critical. These included high upfront costs, funding issues, lack of interest, insufficient human resources, resistance to change, and lack of expertise – all of which align well with Hart et al. (2019). 9 In a Swedish context, both Gerhardsson et al. (2020) and Ericsson et al. (2024) have identified the lack of a professional reuse market as a key barrier to the reuse of building materials. This finding is consistent with Rakhshan et al. (2020), who note that the absence of a mature reuse market hinders the establishment of a sustainable supply of recovered building components. Similarly, Nordby (2019) argue that technical, legislative, and market-related barriers to reuse are linked to an underdeveloped market, compounded by a lack of information on used construction products and inadequate legislation governing the sale and use of reused materials. According to Rakhshan et al. (2020), overcoming barriers to reuse in the building sector requires a holistic approach. However, as many of these barriers are interrelated, they argue that priority should be given to addressing social, economic, and regulatory barriers. 2.1.5 Enablers for Circularity and Reuse in Construction Using the cultural, regulatory, financial, and sectoral categories, Hart et al. (2019) also identified enablers for CE, and explored how they relate to existing barriers. While some enablers directly address barriers within the same category, others intersect across categories. For example, leadership – a cultural enabler – was proposed as a response to sectoral barriers related to the nature of the industry itself. Likewise, fostering long-term relationships and partnerships was presented as a solution to the short-term financial focus. In the regulatory domain, policy support and public procurement were proposed to address the lack of a consistent regulatory framework. According to Ababio and Lu (2023), enabling strategies for increased CE implementation in the construction industry include promoting stakeholder awareness, creating roles within firms to champion the transition, developing collaborative tools for information transfer, enforcing strict CE policies and guidelines, using innovative procurement and financing methods, and funding CE-related research projects. Additionally, both Nordby (2019) and AlJaber et al. (2023) identify economic incentives as enablers for reuse. Benachio et al. (2020) emphasise the importance of integrating CE practices during the early design stages of a project. Similarly, Ericsson et al. (2024) highlight the early introduction of reuse as a key enabler. At this stage, Bellini et al. (2024) argue that establishing strong collaboration among project participants and adopting a systemic approach is essential. They also stress the importance of involving architects and consultants early on to support the 10 successful implementation of reuse and circularity. In addition, Ericsson et al. (2024) suggest that the early involvement of manufacturers – by connecting them with architects to facilitate the integration of reused products into the design – can help reduce waste, simplify logistics, and create new business opportunities. These perspectives align with AlJaber et al. (2023), who identify stakeholder collaboration and engagement as important enablers for implementing CE practices in the building sector. Moreover, Bellini et al. (2024) state that a clear goal for reuse and CE should be defined in the early phases of the project. This is further supported by Gerhardsson et al. (2020), who emphasise the importance of setting specific targets for reuse and regularly following up on them. If needed, they recommend adjusting these targets throughout the process to ensure they meet the criteria of being specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time bound (SMART). In addition, Benachio et al. (2020) highlight the role of Building Information Modelling (BIM) as a key enabler, emphasising its ability to store material information within digital models and support the analysis of reuse potential across different material choices. Similarly, AlJaber et al. (2023) identify the use of BIM as one of the most critical enablers for facilitating the transition to a CE, as it has the potential to support the planning, management, and supervision of the entire building lifecycle. According to Charef and Emmitt (2021), developing and enhancing the use of BIM in the construction sector can help overcome economic, political, sociological, technical, environmental, and organisational barriers to the adoption of CE practices. Bellini et al. (2024) also identify the lack of information and data about existing products as a barrier to reuse. One way to address this challenge is through reuse mapping, also referred to as a reuse inventory. This aligns with Gerhardsson et al. (2020), who recommend conducting a materials inventory at an early stage to support decision-making related to reuse and circularity. Similarly, Ericsson et al. (2024) note that early inventories help lower the threshold for initiating reuse. They suggest that such inventories can provide a basis for contractor procurement – for instance, by being included in tender documents and contracts. Furthermore, enabling reuse requires new design methods that are adapted to circularity and reuse, distributing project resources with reuse in mind, and creating incentives for reuse in procurement (Gerhardsson et al., 2020). It also involves allocating more time, establishing new roles and responsibilities, and developing new working methods (Ericsson et al., 2024). 11 Overall, Ericsson et al. (2024) highlight that organisational factors are among the most frequently cited when discussing both enablers and barriers to reuse. While one of the most significant barriers identified was organisational challenges related to project management and leadership, the main enablers included new and improved methods for project management as well as enhanced competence and learning within and across organisations. 2.2 Organisation and Contract Relationships in Construction According to Ericsson et al. (2024), certain contract and procurement forms may act as barriers to reuse in construction, while others are highlighted as creating favourable conditions for it. Therefore, the choice of contract type and procurement strategy is an important consideration when implementing reuse in construction. These topics are explored further in this section. 2.2.1 Contract Types and Project Delivery Methods In Sweden, construction projects typically follow one of two main contract types: design-build contracts (also known as turnkey contracts) or traditional construction contracts, in which the client is responsible for the design (also referred to as execution contracts) (Boverket, 2024b). These contract types correspond to different project delivery methods: design-build and design- bid-build. The project delivery method defines the relationship between the contracting parties and the timing of their involvement (Ibrahim et al., 2020). According to Hale et al. (2009), the design-build delivery method involves the client awarding a single contract to a company responsible for both the design and construction, based on the client’s project requirements. In contrast, under the design-bid-build method, the client first enters into a contract with an architect or engineering firm that provides design services and produces design documents. These documents then serve as the basis for a separate contract with a construction company, which executes the construction without assuming responsibility for the design. A third delivery method is construction management (CM), described by Ibrahim et al. (2020) as a system in which a construction manager is engaged early in the process to support the client during both the design and construction phases. Kereri (2017) suggests that design-build projects generally foster stronger relationships between parties compared to design-bid-build projects. For instance, design-build contracts 12 tend to involve greater trust and more balanced risk allocation. According to Kereri (2017), this is due to the contractual dynamics of the two methods; while design-bid-build parties typically focus on fulfilling contractual obligations, design-build parties often aim to secure future contracts with each other. Additionally, Hale et al. (2009) found that the design-build project delivery method outperformed design-bid-build in terms of both cost and time. Lingegård et al. (2021) note that for experienced clients, a design-bid-build setup with a traditional construction contract offers greater control over quality, as it allows them to specify materials and technical solutions in detail. However, this approach limits the contractor’s opportunities to contribute to innovation. As a result, the responsibility for driving innovation rests more heavily with the client organisation. Nonetheless, the overall potential for innovation is considered equally high in both traditional construction contracts and design-build contracts; the key difference lies in which party is primarily responsible for generating innovative solutions (Göteborgs Stad, 2020). If the client seeks to leverage the contractor’s expertise – such as in material selection or ensuring constructability – Lingegård et al. (2021) argue that the earlier involvement of the contractor enabled by a design-build contract can be advantageous. However, to realise innovation through this approach, it is essential that the contractor is procured with incentives to invest time and resources in development activities, rather than through traditional price- based competitive tendering. 2.2.2 Procurement Strategies Boverket (2024b) identifies two main types of procurement in Sweden: divided contracts and general contracts. These approaches determine how many contractors the client procures and how the contractual relationships are structured. In a divided contract, the client directly procures and contracts all necessary contractors for the project, treating them as parallel actors. In contrast, in a general contract, the client hires a general contractor, who then procures and manages the required subcontractors. In a CM project, however, the construction manager assumes the responsibilities of a general contractor, managing all contractors throughout the project (Ibrahim et al., 2020). In the transition to a CE, the concept of circular procurement has emerged. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (2018), this involves both promoting circular business 13 models and procuring more circular products, materials, and services. Such procurement can be achieved by developing and applying circular procurement criteria and encouraging product lifetime extension. Xu et al. (2022) outline that the circular procurement process includes defining goals and objectives, deciding how to design the procurement, and selecting an appropriate evaluation model with relevant CE criteria. Since circular procurement remains relatively new and uncertain for many companies, it often requires internal collaboration across departments. However, the specific design of the circular procurement process varies. Ahmed et al. (2024) stress that the procurement strategy is crucial for enabling CE in construction projects. Yet, contracts are typically awarded based on the lowest tender, focusing primarily on time, cost, and quality. Because current procurement strategies often lack CE objectives, little attention is given to sustainability and CE in procurement. This aligns with both Sajid et al. (2024), who note that literature on circular procurement in construction is still limited, and Ababio et al. (2025), who argue that few studies have evaluated circular procurement within a construction setting. To accelerate circular procurement in construction, Sajid et al. (2024) recommend incentivising stakeholders to adopt circular practices and using pilot projects to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Similarly, Ababio et al. (2025) note that pilot projects can help demonstrate the quantifiable benefits of circular procurement. They also advocate for aligning procurement strategies with CE principles and developing circularity metrics to guide the procurement. Ahmed et al. (2024) further argue that CE objectives should be clearly defined and integrated across the entire procurement process. From early project stages, procurement criteria can be used to establish CE requirements. For example, the reuse of building materials can be encouraged through specifications in tender documents during the procurement phase. A more detailed guideline to circular procurement in construction is provided by Göteborgs Stad (2020). They suggest that procurement documents should offer contractors the necessary information to submit circular tenders. In renovation and demolition projects, a well- documented material inventory plays a key role in the procurement documentation. Additionally, it may be relevant to specify how the documentation of installed products and materials should be conducted. Tender documents should also clearly state how bids will be evaluated and followed up, what methods will be used, and what information and documentation the contractor must provide during these phases. 14 Gerhardsson et al. (2019) argue that for reuse to be implemented in practice, the client must offer appropriate incentives. This can be achieved by integrating reuse into procurement documents through financial incentives, setting specific targets for reuse levels, or providing separate guidelines for product guarantees and quality assurance of reused materials. Similarly, Göteborgs Stad (2020) emphasises that bonuses and penalties linked to clear circular goals or requirements can effectively steer contractors toward increased circularity. Additionally, Ericsson et al. (2024) note that it may be necessary to redefine responsibilities in reuse projects, as obtaining material warranties for reused products is often difficult – creating uncertainty regarding performance and responsibility allocation. 2.2.3 Partnering According to Bresnen and Marshall (2000), partnering refers to a form of inter-organisational collaboration, typically between clients and contractors, in which the parties agree to cooperate and resolve problems jointly and informally. Thereby, it aims to address issues associated with the fragmentation of the construction industry. When implemented successfully, partnering can reduce costs and project durations, improve quality and safety, and increase client satisfaction. Additionally, Black et al. (2000) found that partnering can foster less adversarial relationships and greater understanding between parties. However, its success depends on mutual trust, effective communication, commitment, a clear understanding of roles, consistency, and a flexible attitude. Furthermore, Bresnen et al. (2025) argue that partnering requires greater sharing of risk, rewards, resources, and knowledge – enabling more open communication and trusting relationships. Byggherrarna (n.d.) note that in recent decades, partnering has become relatively common in the Swedish construction industry. However, it is important to clarify that partnering is not a contract type, but rather a business model that can be applied to both design-build and traditional construction contracts. It is typically combined with procurement methods and compensation models that promote cooperation between the parties. The model is generally well-suited for complex projects with a high degree of uncertainty – for example, projects where it is difficult to produce detailed documentation in advance, or where flexibility is required to adapt the work to changing conditions. Such projects may include renovation and extension works with tenants remaining in place, or refurbishments involving heritage conservation. 15 Similarly, several studies have identified partnering as a suitable approach to support circularity and reuse. For example, Ahmed et al. (2024) argue that collaborative and partnering-based procurement methods are essential for the effective implementation of CE in construction. Ericsson et al. (2024) highlight that partnering enhances collaboration, fosters shared goals, and enables trade-offs between costs and benefits, all of which facilitate reuse. It also helps address responsibility issues and supports ongoing dialogue with contractors, making it particularly effective in large-scale reuse projects. When combined with cost-plus compensation models and target pricing, partnering creates favourable conditions and incentives for contractors to prioritise disassembly and reuse over purchasing new materials. Furthermore, Perzon et al. (2022) note that partnering is especially effective in reuse projects where not all goals or parameters are defined from the outset, as it allows for late-stage changes or substitutions with reused materials, provided that all parties understand this from the beginning. However, according to Bresnen et al. (2025), a clear and widely accepted definition of partnering is still lacking. As a result, partners may hold differing views on what partnering entails, which can hinder its successful implementation. The lack of a clear definition also complicates comparisons between partnering projects, as the metrics used to evaluate their outcomes tend to be highly context specific. Another barrier to partnering is the tension between competition and collaboration. While some clients prefer to test the market and minimise upfront costs through competitive tendering, enabling greater collaboration through a negotiated partnering agreement often requires giving up the benefits of competition in procurement. For contractors, the opportunity to secure future work through partnering comes with the downside of assuming greater risk and potentially reduced profit margins – particularly in markets where clients hold more power. In addition, Oliveira and Lumineau (2017) note that the use of a partnering contract alone is insufficient to improve project performance, and that the benefits of partnering can be achieved without explicitly committing to it. Similarly, Black et al. (2000) argue that partnering can be effective, but only if all project participants adopt new mindsets and actively contribute to enhancing efficiency, success, and reducing conflicts. Trigunarsyah (2017) also suggests that the client’s level of involvement largely depends on organisational culture, and that adopting a team-oriented approach can help increase client involvement and improve performance. 16 2.3 The Design and Construction Process Kagioglou et al. (2000) divide the design and construction process into ten phases, grouped into four broader stages: pre-project, pre-construction, construction, and post-construction. During the pre-project phases, the client’s needs are gradually clarified and assessed to determine whether a construction project is necessary and to obtain initial financial approval to proceed. In the pre-construction stage, these needs are developed into a design solution. The design is successively developed with the ultimate aim of producing approved production documents. By the end of this stage, full financial authority must be secured for the project to move forward. The construction phase then begins, involving the actual realisation of the design. At this point, any changes in the client’s requirements should be minimal, as the cost of changes increases significantly as the project progresses. Finally, the post-construction stage includes the operation and maintenance of the completed facility. However, this final stage lies outside the scope of this thesis. Building on the process protocol introduced by Kagioglou et al. (2000), Cooper et al. (2008) similarly describe the design and construction process in terms of pre-project, pre-construction, construction, and post-completion phases. The pre-project phases involve identifying needs, exploring potential solutions, evaluating project feasibility, and obtaining financial approval to proceed. The pre-construction stage includes both conceptual design phases, where key design elements are identified and a system concept design is developed, and a coordinated design phase, which should be detailed enough to ensure predictability regarding cost, design, and production. As noted by Kagioglou et al. (2000), full financial approval is required before construction begins. The construction phases involve preparing detailed production documentation, including coordinated construction drawings, as well as executing the actual construction works. The post-completion phases correspond to the post-construction phases defined by Kagioglou et al. (2000), which are, again, outside the scope of this thesis. Mitchell et al. (2011) focus specifically on the interface between the pre-construction and construction stages – namely, the transition from detailed design to construction. With the increasing use of design-build contracts, responsibility for detailed design is often transferred to the main contractor. However, these phases differ in character and must be managed accordingly. While the design process is iterative, involving multiple cycles of development and revision, the construction process is more linear in nature. To explore this interface, Mitchell et al. (2011) conceptualise the design process as a spiral in which uncertainty is 17 gradually reduced and ultimately eliminated as the design matures. By the time construction is completed, all uncertainty should have been resolved. Based on the descriptions and discussions above, this thesis groups the design and construction process into five main phases: a pre-study, a program phase, a system design phase, a detailed design phase, and a production phase. These stages are illustrated in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: The standard design and construction process (the author’s own figure). The pre-study phase involves defining the project needs, assessing feasibility, and obtaining initial financial approval to proceed. The program phase focuses on developing the project brief and producing a preliminary conceptual design. The system design phase includes the development of the design from a system-level concept to coordination across disciplines. The detailed design phase entails producing comprehensive production documentation, including construction drawings. Finally, the production phase involves the execution of the actual construction works. This model does not account for the potential overlap between phases, although such overlaps may occur in practice. According to Konstantinou et al. (2021), the same main project phases apply to renovation projects. However, in renovation projects, the pre-study phase also includes analysing and diagnosing the existing building. If tenants remain in the building during construction, this affects the production phase – for instance, in terms of time planning. Similarly, Shiue et al. (2019) note that the concurrent use of the building by both workers and occupants makes scheduling more difficult in renovation projects than in new construction. 2.3.1 Integrating Reuse in the Design and Construction Process Reusing building products and components in construction projects significantly impacts the traditional design and construction process (Støre-Valen, 2024). According to Göteborgs Stad (2020), the clear separation between stages in a conventional process presents challenges for integrating reused materials. Consequently, adopting a more integrated approach to planning 18 and construction may be beneficial. Reuse also affects the project timeline, as some activities may require more time, others less, and entirely new tasks may be introduced. For example, additional time is often needed during the design and construction phases to accommodate disassembly, along with increased demands on planning and logistics. In renovation and demolition projects, an important step is to inventory existing components and make relevant information about these products accessible. Furthermore, a more flexible design process is required – one that can accommodate uncertainty, as it is not always clear from the outset which products will be available for reuse. Similarly, Gerhardsson et al. (2019) mention disassembly, reconditioning, storage, and increased working time to identify reuse opportunities as new project phases that emerge with reuse. They emphasise the importance of planning for reuse and the associated new phases as early as possible. For instance, conducting a reuse inventory in the early stages of a project can support more informed decision-making and planning. This point is reinforced by Støre-Valen (2024), who argues that collaboration and the involvement of relevant expertise are essential in the early stages. In particular, Støre-Valen (2024) suggests that reuse consultants should be involved early on to assist with the inventory process. Moreover, it is crucial to incorporate reuse considerations into the budgeting process (Gerhardsson et al., 2019). Although the reuse process is generally treated as separate from the design and construction process, some attempts have been made to integrate them. For example, Lindborg et al. (2024), propose conducting a brief reuse inventory during the pre-study phase, formulating reuse goals during the program phase, and carrying out a more detailed inventory during the system design phase. In later phases, these activities are typically followed by steps such as disassembly, transport and storage, possible quality control and classification, potential reconditioning, and finally, reassembly. However, Lindborg et al. (2024) also note that no single, standardised reuse process exists. As a result, both the activities involved and the order in which they are carried out can vary between reuse projects. 19 3. Methodology In this chapter, the chosen methodology for the thesis is described. The sections cover the research approach, research design, data collection, data analysis, data quality and trustworthiness, and ethical considerations. 3.1 Research Approach For this thesis, an abductive research approach was adopted, allowing the theoretical framework, empirical data collection, and analysis to evolve simultaneously. As the research questions were confronted with the empirical world, they were continuously refined and reoriented. This process is described by Dubois and Gadde (2002) as ‘systematic combining’. By moving iteratively between theory and empirical observations, the understanding of both was gradually deepened. The central idea of this approach is that “theory cannot be understood without empirical observation and vice versa” (Dubois & Gadde, 2002, p. 555). The flexibility of the abductive approach enabled the exploration of new concepts and ideas as they emerged during the research process. Since this thesis employed a qualitative research strategy, data collection and analysis focused on words rather than quantification (Bell et al., 2019), which supported a deeper exploration of real-world problems (Tenny et al., 2022). 3.2 Research Design The research was designed as a multiple case study, including three Swedish redevelopment projects: Lumi, Werket, and Trikåfabriken. According to Dubois and Gadde (2002), “case studies provide unique means of developing theory by utilizing in-depth insights of empirical phenomena and their contexts” (p. 555). By conducting a multiple case study, it was possible to gain a deeper understanding of these specific projects while also enabling comparisons between them. The projects were selected because they all had high ambitions regarding reuse and were completed within the past three years. The study was limited to completed projects in order to examine the entire design and construction process and to allow for conclusions to be drawn about the outcomes. At the same time, it was important to study recent projects, as the development of reuse practices is progressing rapidly. To enable more general conclusions 20 within a Swedish context, projects were selected from three different property owners in three different large to mid-sized Swedish cities. 3.3 Data Collection The empirical data was collected through interviews with representatives from the three case projects. This method was selected because the aim was to explore the individual experiences of professionals involved in reuse projects, which made qualitative interviews an appropriate choice (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014). For each project, 3–4 semi-structured interviews were conducted with project stakeholders such as the client, project manager, architect, and contractor. The interviewees are presented in Figure 3.1. In total, 11 interviews were conducted. This number falls within the range suggested by Kvale and Brinkmann (2014), who note that interview studies commonly involve between 5 and 25 interviews, although the ideal number depends on the purpose of the study. While a larger number of interviewees can offer a broader range of perspectives, a smaller sample allows for more in-depth analysis. This balance was carefully considered when determining the number of interviewees. The interviewees’ individual experiences collectively contributed to a holistic understanding of the design and construction process, as well as the influence of contract types and organisational structures, in each project. The use of a semi-structured approach allowed for flexible interviews with minor adjustments to the wording and order of questions depending on the interviewees’ responses, which further supported the explorative nature of the study. All interviews were conducted in Swedish to ensure that interviewees could express themselves in a language they felt comfortable using. As the case projects were situated in different parts of Sweden, all interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. The interviews followed a guideline consisting mainly of open-ended questions (see Appendix), allowing the respondents to describe their experiences from the specific case project in their own words. The interviewees were asked to briefly describe their own role in the project, how reuse was addressed in their work, the organisational structure and the type of contract used, the process during different project phases, and to reflect on challenges and success factors related to reuse. Each interview concluded with an open question, giving the interviewee the 21 opportunity to add any additional thoughts if they wished. The interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, with most of them lasting around 45 minutes. Label Role Date Lumi A1 Project Director 2025-03-10 A2 Architectural Project Manager 2025-03-11 A3 BIM Manager and Assistant Project Manager 2025-03-12 A4 Site Manager 2025-04-11 Werket B1 Project Development Manager 2025-03-20 B2 Architect (and Interdisciplinary Design Coordinator) 2025-03-07 B3 Site Manager 2025-03-18 B4 External Project Manager and Construction Manager 2025-04-14 Trikåfabriken C1 Project Director 2025-03-24 C2 Project Architect 2025-04-10 C3 Senior Construction Manager 2025-04-24 Figure 3.1: List of interviewees. To provide a clear idea of the interview’s focus and to allow time for reflection, the main interview questions were sent to the interviewees a few days in advance. However, sub- questions were not shared in advance, leaving room for flexibility and helping to maintain the semi-structured character of the interviews. In some cases, complementary information was provided by the interviewees via email, either before or after the interview. The interviews were recorded and transcribed automatically in Microsoft Teams, with the interviewees’ consent. The transcriptions were then proofread and corrected by the author to ensure they accurately reflected the interviewees’ oral responses. The intention was to reproduce the answers verbatim, but where necessary for the sake of readability, minor adjustments were made to facilitate the subsequent analysis process. For example, repetitions and filler words were removed. Pauses, intonation, and voice level were not reflected in the transcription. Since the author was solely responsible for conducting the interviews, 22 transcribing them, and carrying out the analysis, the primary aim was to ensure that the transcriptions were clear and understandable to the author. Furthermore, the content of the responses was considered more relevant for the purpose of this study than their exact phrasing. 3.4 Data Analysis As all interview transcripts were originally in Swedish, the data analysis and coding process was conducted in Swedish to minimize the loss of information. Only direct quotes were translated to English. The data was analysed using a thematic approach. First, four main categories were defined based on an initial analysis of the interview transcripts, and then the sub-categories were successively developed while reading and analysing the interview transcripts (see themes in Figure 3.2). The sub-categories related to “Reuse activities” were also coded based on when in the design and construction process each activity took place. Project organisation Procurement Reuse activities Challenges and success factors Partnering Selection of consultants and contractors Reuse goal formulation Culture and collaboration Other contracts Clear requirements Inventory Economic hinders Project roles Financial incentives Disassembly Regulatory hinders Warranties Quality control and test assembly Reconditioning Design and planning for reuse Storage and logistics Reassembly Figure 3.2: List of themes. 23 3.5 Data Quality and Trustworthiness According to Bell et al. (2019), trustworthiness in qualitative research can be achieved by fulfilling four main quality criteria. These are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility entails “both ensuring that research is carried out according to the canons of good practice and submitting research findings to the members of the social world who were studied, for confirmation that the investigator has correctly understood that social world” (Bell et al., 2019, p. 363). The latter technique can be referred to as respondent validation. In this study, all interviewees were given the opportunity to review a first draft of the case studies and results chapters. This helped ensure that the findings aligned with the views of the respondents. Another method used for ensuring the credibility of the findings was triangulation, which involves using multiple sources of data and cross-checking the findings against each other. This was achieved by conducting multiple interviews on the same project. The respondents represented at least three different companies involved in each project, offering diverse perspectives on the topics discussed. Transferability refers to the degree to which the findings can be generalised to other settings. According to Bell et al. (2019), this can be a problem in qualitative research as it typically involves case studies and small samples, tending to be oriented to a specific context. In this thesis, the aim is for the results to be transferable to other redevelopment projects in Sweden, but not necessarily beyond that context. However, the thesis also aims to be detailed and transparent enough for the reader to be able to judge whether the findings are applicable to other contexts. Dependability is concerned with the consistency of the results, and whether they are repeatable (Bell et al., 2019). To ensure the dependability of the study, the same interview guideline was used for all interviews, and all steps of the research process were carefully documented. Confirmability involves ensuring that the researcher has conducted the study in good faith, without letting personal values influence the research process or its findings (Bell et al., 2019). While complete objectivity is ultimately unattainable, the author of this study made a conscious effort to remain critical and impartial, striving to approach an accurate understanding of reality. 24 3.6 Ethical Considerations In conducting the interview study, ethical principles related to informed consent, confidentiality, and data protection were carefully followed. Prior to the interviews, participants received an information email along with the Microsoft Teams invitation, outlining the study’s purpose and their rights as participants. They were informed that the interviews would be recorded and transcribed with their consent and that all collected data would be securely stored. The recordings and transcripts would be deleted upon the completion of the thesis, or no later than December 31, 2025. To ensure confidentiality, any information that could directly or indirectly identify participants or their respective companies would be excluded from the final thesis unless explicit permission was granted. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and interviewees had the right to withdraw at any time without providing a reason. Additionally, they were informed of their right to access, correct, or request the deletion of their data in accordance with GDPR. These ethical measures were implemented to protect participants' privacy and ensure transparency and integrity in the research process. During the interviews, all interviewees gave their verbal consent for the thesis to mention the name of the project they had been involved in, as well as their professional role. This information is presented in Figure 3.1, with an individual label assigned to each respondent to ensure their anonymity. The interviewees also had the chance to review a draft of the findings to ensure they approved of how the collected data was used and interpreted. As part of the writing process, the author used the AI tool ChatGPT to support the translation of the interview findings and the proofreading of the thesis. The tool was employed solely for language-related feedback, such as identifying grammatical errors and suggesting clearer formulations. No sensitive or personal information about the interviewees was shared with the tool, and the author takes full responsibility for the final content of the thesis. 25 4. Case studies This chapter presents and briefly describes the three case projects to provide background for the subsequent Results chapter. For each project, the description focuses on the type of products that were reused and the organisational structure, including the contract types and procurement strategies used. 4.1 Lumi Lumi is part of a larger redevelopment of a 1970s government agency block in Uppsala, Sweden, which has served – and continues to serve – as office and laboratory space. The initial plan was to demolish the entire block and replace it with new, modern facilities. However, when it became clear that the proposed construction closely resembled the existing volumes, it was concluded that retaining the building would be more cost-effective, time-efficient, and sustainable than demolition. Consequently, the decision was made to preserve the structure. A covered atrium was added to connect the different sections of the building, and three new floors were constructed on top of the original structure, making the project a combination of renovation and extension. Images of the building before and after the redevelopment are shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: To the left, a picture of Lumi before the renovation. To the right, a picture of Lumi after the renovation. Photographs by White Arkitekter, republished with permission. The renovation and extension work took place between 2022 and 2024 and covered a total of 22,000 square meters of gross floor area (GFA). In the project, the structural frame and foundations were preserved. This was possible, despite the addition of three new floors, because the original façade was removed and replaced by a lighter one, thereby reducing the building’s 26 overall weight. Since larger parts of the block were demolished, there was a much bigger structure to source materials from, creating favourable conditions for large-scale internal reuse. Gypsum boards and suspended ceiling tiles account for a large portion of the reused building components, coming both from the project itself and from another property owned by the client. Other examples of reused products within the project include doors, glass partitions, built-in furniture, installation products, bricks, and lightweight concrete. The only reused products purchased from an external supplier were carpet tiles. Otherwise, all reused materials came from client’s own property portfolio. 4.1.1 Project Organisation and Procurement in Lumi In the Lumi project, a divided contract structure was used, and a construction management (CM) consultancy firm was engaged to oversee the construction process. Approximately 50 contractors were involved, all directly contracted by the client, with the majority operating under AB 04 – the standard agreement for traditional construction contracts, in which the client retains responsibility for the design. Although some contractors participated during the pre- construction phases, including inventory, disassembly, and test assembly, they were generally not the same parties responsible for reassembly during the production phase. The architect was procured through an existing framework agreement and was involved from the pre-study phase until project completion. While the CM consultants did not hold contractual relationships with the contractors, they were responsible for contractor procurement in collaboration with the client. The CM consultants issued request documents, evaluated tenders, and then submitted a procurement evaluation report to the client, comparing the tenders and recommending which contractors should be awarded contracts. In most cases, the client followed these recommendations, as the CM consultants ultimately bore responsibility for managing the project and working directly with the contractors. In the procurement process, the Revit model was used to extract quantity take-offs for the request documents. Contractors were then procured based on unit prices, with a distinction made between the price for assembling reused materials, where the client provided the materials, and the price for assembling and purchasing new materials. Quantities were continuously extracted from the 3D model, and a structure was in place for estimating the 27 amount of material as well as determining what proportion could be supplied and what needed to be purchased. No financial incentives were included in the contracts. 4.2 Werket Werket is another office building previously occupied by Swedish government agencies, originally constructed in 1975 and located in Jönköping, Sweden. When the property owner suddenly faced a complete lease termination, leaving 25,000 square meters of office space vacant, the need arose to renovate the building to make the premises rentable again. It was a structure with low floor-to-ceiling heights, small windows, and heavy brick walls – features that made it appear highly outdated. Although demolition was considered, the decision was ultimately made to work with the existing structure and transform it into something new and attractive. The renovation was carried out between 2021 and 2023. The project primarily involved refurbishment of the existing premises but also included the construction of a covered courtyard using an ETFE roof spanning between the building volumes. Images of the building before and after the redevelopment are shown in Figure 4.2. Within the project, stairwells were preserved, and a range of building products were reused, including bricks, tiles, porcelain fixtures, electrical and ventilation ducts, cable trays, as well as selected doors and glass partitions. Figure 4.2: To the left, a picture of Werket before the renovation. To the right, a picture of Werket after the renovation. Photographs by Castellum, republished with permission. Two office spaces were also constructed using 100% reused materials, with only a few electrical cables being newly installed. In these spaces, items such as kitchens, frames, doors, wall tiles, floor tiles, carpets, and suspended ceilings with grid systems were reused. To achieve full reuse 28 in these areas, materials were sourced both from within the building and from other properties owned by the client. No reused materials were purchased from external suppliers, except for furniture. However, a number of components were sold off from the project. 4.2.1 Project Organisation and Procurement in Werket Since Werket differed significantly from other projects at the time, the client chose to divide the project rather than consolidate everything under a single large contract with a general contractor. The project was partially run as a partnering project, in which a design-build contractor was procured to renovate the courtyard, stairwells, industrial kitchen, and restaurant. This contract was a cost-plus agreement with a ceiling price, meaning the contractor was reimbursed for actual costs up to a maximum agreed amount. For the tenant adaptations, however, contractors were engaged through existing framework agreements and operated under traditional construction contracts. These contractors were not procured at a fixed price either; instead, the work was carried out within a predetermined budget. No financial incentives were included in any of the contracts. The various construction firms were procured entirely separately, each under different contracts. However, an external construction manager was hired directly by the client and worked across both contract types, with a more prominent role in the traditional construction contracts, where they oversaw the entire project. The architect was also involved throughout the process, collaborating with both the client and the various contractors. When the design- build contractor was procured, it was a requirement that the same architect from the early stages continue with the project. As a result, the architect was involved from the concept phase through to final inspection. 4.3 Trikåfabriken The third case project examined in this thesis is Trikåfabriken, a former knitwear factory building from the early 1900s located in Malmö, Sweden. Over the years, the building had undergone several extensions, with the most recent addition dating back to the mid-20th century. Since the factory’s closure in the 1980s, the building had become rather worn and was occupied by various types of cultural workers. Previous adaptations had been carried out in a highly localised manner, resulting in a fragmented structure. At the same time, there were strict 29 requirements from the Malmö Museum regarding the preservation of the building's cultural and historical values as it was redeveloped and upgraded into modern office spaces. Images of the building before and after the redevelopment are shown in Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: To the left, a picture of Trikåfabriken before the renovation. To the right, a picture of Trikåfabriken after the renovation. Photographs by Sofia Lagerblad, republished with permission. The project was part of a pilot initiative and among the first renovation projects in Sweden to include climate calculations. It began with a non-compliant planning status, meaning that essentially no changes were allowed. The team also had to work within the constraints of an existing detailed development plan, as there was no time to revise it. The renovation encompassed approximately 5,500 square meters and took place between 2021 and 2022. One of the main tenants is the architectural firm that was also responsible for the project’s design. The project placed strong emphasis on preservation and restoration. As the premises were largely empty, there were limited amounts of materials available for reuse. The primary elements reused within the project included wooden flooring, bricks, and windows. Rosette vents, mouldings, and a few individual doors were also reused where possible. In addition to internal reuse, a significant amount of material was sent to reuse depots, although no reused materials were purchased from external suppliers. 4.3.1 Project Organisation and Procurement in Trikåfabriken In the Trikåfabriken project, the client collaborated with a design-build contractor under a partnering agreement with incentives. This general contractor was responsible for contracting most of the project team, including the architect, other design consultants, and various 30 subcontractors. In total, the organisation comprised approximately 20 subcontractors. Additionally, a few side contractors were procured separately, directly by the client. The architect was involved from the early stages, initially working directly for the client. When the design-build contractor was brought on board, the client required that the same design consultants, including the architect, continue with the project. As the architect was also a tenant, it was particularly important for them to remain engaged throughout the entire process. The client also maintained a direct agreement with the architect in parallel with the design-build contract, enabling them to influence certain aspects of the design throughout the project. Overall, the client organisation remained highly involved, actively participating in decision- making and follow-up. The procurement documents clearly stated that the design-build contractor was expected to promote reuse and that certain decisions required client approval. Contractors were awarded extra points in the tender evaluation for proposing creative solutions for reuse from a production perspective. They were also eligible for a percentage share of a negotiated profit margin if they met three main criteria – one of which was reuse. Furthermore, they were given clear instructions to procure their subcontractors with incentives for reuse. 31 5. Results In this chapter, the main findings from the interviews are presented. The results are organised thematically and address all three case projects collectively. The first two sections focus on the project organisation and the procurement strategies used. The third section identifies and describes eight main types of reuse activities. Finally, the fourth section highlights general challenges and success factors that emerged from the interviews. 5.1 Project Organisation Two projects (Werket and Trikåfabriken) were carried out through partnering with a design- build contractor, with some side contractors procured separately, while one project (Lumi) used a divided contract setup, in which most contractors were procured through traditional construction contracts. Partnering: Several interviewees with experience in partnering mentioned that it can create favourable conditions for reuse. For instance, C1 viewed it as an advantage that the client organisation became more actively involved and was able to provide clear direction throughout the project. According to B4, partnering enabled a different kind of dialogue and a joint focus on achieving the best outcomes for the project. It also allowed certain aspects to evolve during the process, as not everything had to be defined from the start. However, neither of the partnering projects were entirely free of challenges. According to B3, it would have been better to allow more time during phase one, so that more aspects could have been resolved during the design stage, reducing the need for changes later. Instead, B3 felt that things were rushed, and the focus was on moving forward quickly. The construction side had clear incentives to keep to the schedule, as the setup included penalties for exceeding the budget. B3 believed it could have been a better partnering project if risks, opportunities, and profits had been shared more equally – enabling the team to dedicate more time to design development. B1 agreed that there were certain challenges associated with working in a partnering setup with a cost-plus agreement and a ceiling price, as neither the client nor the contractor were particularly accustomed to this way of working. It became difficult for the contractor to operate with such a high level of ambiguity, and in some cases, the client and the contractor had 32 differing views on what constituted a variation order and what did not. C2 also noted some drawbacks of bringing in a design-build contractor to take over responsibility, as this gave the contractor considerable influence over how things were to be executed, which not necessarily aligned with the architect’s priorities. Moreover, the advantages of partnering also appear to be achievable under other contract and procurement models. Both B1 and B4 described strong collaboration and the ability to implement changes and make quick decisions, even when working with the framework agreement contractors involved in Werket. This flexibility was largely attributed to the fact that these contractors were working to a budget rather than a fixed price. B1 further highlighted that success depends on having the right company or organisation in the appropriate role. While the larger design-build contractor was well-suited for managing the more complex aspects of the project, the framework agreement contractors proved more effective for handling tenant adaptations. Other contracts: The Lumi project, however, used a quite different project setup with a divided contract structure and a CM consultancy firm managing the construction process. According to A1, this was advantageous as it gave the client more control and provided greater flexibility throughout the process compared to working with a general contractor. “I don't believe this would have worked well with a large contractor – they tend to focus more on risks, and since this project was essentially all about risk, it would have been a bit more difficult.” – Quote by A1 A3 also believed that the contract setup with a divided contract worked significantly better than a traditional setup with a design-build contractor, as it made it easier to have direct discussions with the client. Since there were some sudden changes regarding which elements would be reused, the flexibility and close collaboration between the client and the CM consultants leading the process proved beneficial. According to A3, such changes would likely have been much more complicated under a different procurement model. Although the overall process worked very well, A4 identified some potential for improvement in the organisational setup of the Lumi project. Specifically, there was no dedicated reuse coordinator, which A4 believed would have facilitated the process. Instead, five to six construction managers each handled reuse within their respective areas, but no one held 33 overarching responsibility for reuse-related matters. In hindsight, A4 felt that such a role should have been established from day one. A general lesson from the project was therefore the importance of organising effectively around reuse and conducting thorough planning, especially in large-scale reuse projects. In all three projects, the same architect was involved from start to finish – something that B1 described as a major advantage. According to B1, architects are often considered expensive and therefore involved for as short a time as possible. However, to succeed with reuse, it is necessary to keep them engaged further into the process. Project roles: It is also worth noting that many interviewees had broader and more extensive responsibilities than their official roles on paper, indicating that the scope of traditional project roles is somewhat changed when working with large-scale reuse. For example, A3 described their formal role as digitalisation lead and assistant project manager, but in practice, they were also responsible for procurement and contracting. A4 also noted that the organisation had a flat structure where formal roles were less emphasised: “I would not say that it is merely a name on paper, because that is not the case – there is a function, and one is expected to fulfil it. However, since the company and the organisation are mine, I simply take action where I see that it is needed.” – Quote by A4 Similarly, B2 explained that although they did not formally hold a project management role, they ended up acting as a kind of coordinator across disciplines, ensuring cohesion throughout the process. When other consultants were less experienced in designing for preservation or reuse, the architects had to support them as well – without being patronising. As a result, the architects became involved in most aspects of the project, driven by a strong desire to do what was best for the project. 5.2 Procurement Selection of consultants and contractors: Several interviewees mentioned that more careful procurement work was required when selecting consultants and contractors for a reuse project. In all three case projects, consultants were handpicked, and in two of the projects (Lumi and Werket), a similar approach was taken for selecting contractors. 34 In the Lumi project, it was described as essential that both contractors and consultants shared the client’s vision – otherwise, the collaboration would not proceed. As a result, the procurement process required greater attention and care. From A1’s perspective, the procurement of contractors was more similar to hiring individual consultants – with a greater focus on personal engagement, interviews, and a more individual approach. Thus, they ensured the formation of an engaged and motivated project team. Similarly, in the Werket project, both contractors and consultants were handpicked for each assignment, resulting in a procurement process that was less strictly followed than usual (B1). In the Trikåfabriken project, consultants were also handpicked and involved throughout the entire process (C1), whereas contractors were procured more traditionally, based on the lowest tender (C2). Clear requirements: In both Lumi and Trikåfabriken, great emphasis was placed on clear requirements and thoroughly developed request documents – particularly in Lumi, where traditional construction contracts were used. According to A2, the extent of what was requested and how requirements were specified varied, but regardless, the architect was expected to provide the necessary documentation for the contractors to be able to prepare their tenders. By having the architects spend more time compiling a detailed list of the requested materials, the contractors were spared from doing manual calculations, allowing more of them to take the time to submit a tender. In addition, the tenders became more comparable, as they were based on the same figures rather than on each contractor’s individual assessment of the documents (A2). For example, it was explicitly stated that contractors installing reused gypsum boards had to price with two workers per board, considering that the reused boards provided by the client were very heavy (A4). From C2's perspective, the tender documentation could have been slightly more detailed, but that would have resulted in a different price. “The tenders were quite competitive. We generally prefer not to select the cheapest option, because it is often not the best; instead, you should select the one that is most realistic. However, for the client, there were probably no alternatives – the lowest price ultimately determined the outcome.” – Quote by C2 35 Instead, the project team had to focus on establishing certain fundamental conditions and articulating these requirements as clearly as possible. For instance, the contractor was prohibited from using cement mortar and was instead required to use lime mortar (C2). According to B4, such detailed requirements are less important in a partnering contract. However, it is crucial to include reuse in the initial project scope to ensure that the team can rely on the fact that the contractor was procured with that condition in mind. To the extent possible, B4 also noted that it is beneficial to carry out preparatory work and investigations to define in the documentation which products should be prioritised for reuse. When working with partnering, this does not necessarily need to be as concrete, but it is helpful if, for instance, the project’s terms and conditions outline that the team will collaboratively identify how to approach reuse. In this case, it was not entirely clear how reuse would be implemented when the procurement documents were drafted, so the client instead stated more generally that reuse would be pursued to the extent possible (B4). Financial incentives: Only one of the projects, Trikåfabriken, implemented financial incentives for reuse in the contractual agreements (C1). In the other two projects, the client did not consider such incentives necessary. Instead, alternative strategies were employed to ensure that reuse remained a central focus throughout the project. “You can offer financial incentives or impose penalties – there are many possible approaches – but I genuinely believe that the most important thing is to establish a shared vision.” – Quote by B1 This meant that in Werket, there were no direct financial incentives for the design-build contractor to engage in reuse if it led to additional costs – at least not from a purely economic perspective. Nonetheless, there was a mutual interest on both sides in identifying reuse opportunities, as the project was carried out in partnering form and the contractor had been procured with the expectation of incorporating reuse (B3). In the Lumi project, the client organisation explicitly specified which products were to be reused. In this way, the contractors were clearly directed to incorporate reuse, even without the use of financial incentives. Warranties: Warranties also became a topic of discussion during the procurement phase in all three projects, given that the contractors were expected to work with reused products. As these 36 products were provided by the client, the client in the Lumi project assumed responsibility for the warranties on the reused items (A1). This arrangement meant that the contractors only provided warranties for the installation, not the products themselves (A4). A similar approach was adopted in the Werket project. According to the client, it was difficult to determine the scope of warranties when certain components were reused (B1), and the contractor was unwilling to provide warranties for reused products (B3). As a result, the client received a warranty for the execution but not for the product when requesting the contractor to use a reused item (B4). However, since the client was prepared for this outcome, it did not become a significant issue; rather than receiving a product warranty, they benefited from a lower purchase price (B3). From the client's perspective, the reasoning was that for every additional year a reused product remains functional, it adds one more year of value that would have been lost if it had simply been discarded (B4). Unlike the contractors in the other two projects, the design-build contractor in Trikåfabriken did not perceive any difficulties in providing warranties for reused products: “We provide the usual warranties as we would for any floor, because the products used are of such high quality. Actually, the floors that were already there were better than most of the new ones you can buy today. So it was not difficult to provide warranties. We offer our standard five- and ten-year warranties on all materials, and we applied the same to the reused materials as well.” – Quote by C3 5.3 Reuse Activities During the interviews, eight types of activities related to reuse were identified, which were implemented to varying degrees across all three case projects. These activities were: reuse goal formulation, inventory, quality control and test assembly, disassembly, reconditioning, design and planning for reuse, storage and logistics, and reassembly. 37 5.3.1 Reuse Goal Formulation In all case projects, ambitious goals for reuse were set. However, these were often either relatively vague or deliberately unattainable – typically framed in terms of reusing “as much as possible”, or even “everything”. While such goals were generally introduced in the early stages, it was common for them to evolve and become more clearly defined as the project progressed. For example, the intention to incorporate reuse in the Lumi project emerged already during the pre-study phase, when the