The integrated project delivery method (IPD) - Revision history

DarioFiorica: /* Understanding IPD */

2023-02-18T11:01:50Z

Understanding IPD

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:01, 18 February 2023
Line 9:		Line 9:

	== Understanding IPD ==		== Understanding IPD ==

	~~[[File:Example.jpg]]~~

	There are two main perspectives of IPD, one being philosophical and the other being a delivery method <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. The simple overall distinction between the two approaches, is that the IPD as a philosophy encourages collaboration although not being bound by a multi-party contractual agreement, instead it functions more as an overall ideology <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. On the other hand, the IPD as a delivery method aligns the involved stakeholders by a single contractual agreement and hence enables the possibility of full knowledge sharing and management of expectations.		There are two main perspectives of IPD, one being philosophical and the other being a delivery method <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. The simple overall distinction between the two approaches, is that the IPD as a philosophy encourages collaboration although not being bound by a multi-party contractual agreement, instead it functions more as an overall ideology <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. On the other hand, the IPD as a delivery method aligns the involved stakeholders by a single contractual agreement and hence enables the possibility of full knowledge sharing and management of expectations.

DarioFiorica: /* Understanding IPD */

2023-02-18T11:01:17Z

Understanding IPD

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:01, 18 February 2023
Line 10:		Line 10:
	== Understanding IPD ==		== Understanding IPD ==

	[[File:~~IPDVENT~~.~~png\|300px\|thumb\|right\|IPD relation between participants (own figure based on Horst Construction [https://www.horstconstruction.com/news-and-blog/how-does-the-integrated-project-delivery-method-work/]~~]]		[[File:Example.jpg]]

	There are two main perspectives of IPD, one being philosophical and the other being a delivery method <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. The simple overall distinction between the two approaches, is that the IPD as a philosophy encourages collaboration although not being bound by a multi-party contractual agreement, instead it functions more as an overall ideology <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. On the other hand, the IPD as a delivery method aligns the involved stakeholders by a single contractual agreement and hence enables the possibility of full knowledge sharing and management of expectations.		There are two main perspectives of IPD, one being philosophical and the other being a delivery method <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. The simple overall distinction between the two approaches, is that the IPD as a philosophy encourages collaboration although not being bound by a multi-party contractual agreement, instead it functions more as an overall ideology <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. On the other hand, the IPD as a delivery method aligns the involved stakeholders by a single contractual agreement and hence enables the possibility of full knowledge sharing and management of expectations.
Line 70:		Line 70:

	The C/CM is a very important role since the C/CM is responsible for achieving the goals of the project <ref name=CIDCI> ''Charles Pankow Foundation Center for Innovation in the Design and Construction Industry (CIDCI), Integrated Project Delivery Alliance (IPDA), ''INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY An Action Guide for Leaders'', https://leanipd.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IPD-An-Action-Guide-for-Leaders.pdf' </ref>. The C/CM should be able to conceptualize the input from the designer and based on that provide the project owner with associated costs and time frames <ref name=CIDCI> ''Charles Pankow Foundation Center for Innovation in the Design and Construction Industry (CIDCI), Integrated Project Delivery Alliance (IPDA), ''INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY An Action Guide for Leaders'', https://leanipd.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IPD-An-Action-Guide-for-Leaders.pdf' </ref>. Furthermore, the C/CM needs to understand what direction the project owner is steering the scope of the project, and apply those alterations to the construction work.		The C/CM is a very important role since the C/CM is responsible for achieving the goals of the project <ref name=CIDCI> ''Charles Pankow Foundation Center for Innovation in the Design and Construction Industry (CIDCI), Integrated Project Delivery Alliance (IPDA), ''INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY An Action Guide for Leaders'', https://leanipd.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IPD-An-Action-Guide-for-Leaders.pdf' </ref>. The C/CM should be able to conceptualize the input from the designer and based on that provide the project owner with associated costs and time frames <ref name=CIDCI> ''Charles Pankow Foundation Center for Innovation in the Design and Construction Industry (CIDCI), Integrated Project Delivery Alliance (IPDA), ''INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY An Action Guide for Leaders'', https://leanipd.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IPD-An-Action-Guide-for-Leaders.pdf' </ref>. Furthermore, the C/CM needs to understand what direction the project owner is steering the scope of the project, and apply those alterations to the construction work.



	== Application of Integrated Project Delivery ==		== Application of Integrated Project Delivery ==

S163796 at 20:00, 28 February 2021

2021-02-28T20:00:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 28 February 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~By Luise-Josefine Birk~~


	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==

S163796 at 20:00, 28 February 2021

2021-02-28T20:00:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 28 February 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~The integrated project delivery method (IPD)~~

	By Luise-Josefine Birk		By Luise-Josefine Birk

S163796 at 19:59, 28 February 2021

2021-02-28T19:59:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 28 February 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The integrated project delivery method (IPD)		The integrated project delivery method (IPD)

	By Luise-Josefine Birk		By Luise-Josefine Birk

S163796 at 19:59, 28 February 2021

2021-02-28T19:59:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 28 February 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The integrated project delivery method (IPD)		The integrated project delivery method (IPD)
			By Luise-Josefine Birk

S163796 at 19:59, 28 February 2021

2021-02-28T19:59:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 28 February 2021
Line 4:		Line 4:
	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==

	Integrated project delivery (IPD) is an approach in construction project management that seeks to engage collaboration and efficiency between relevant project stakeholders, namely project owner, architect, and contractor in all phases of the project. The IPD is especially relevant in the initial and planning phases of the project lifecycle since this is when team members and the appropriate procurement strategy is selected <ref name=~~prince~~> ''~~Project Management~~: ~~"Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2", 6th Edition~~ (~~2017~~) ' </ref>. The current form of IPD was created to relief the symptoms that can arise from the lack of transparency, trust, and collaboration throughout the project lifecycle <ref name=KPMG> ''KPMG, ''Integrated Project Delivery, Managing risk and making it work for all parties'', 2013 https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/10/integrated-project-delivery-whitepaper.pdf ' </ref>. The IPD is not suitable for all types of projects, and should depend heavily on the size, complexity, and the potential risk adversity of the project in scope.		Integrated project delivery (IPD) is an approach in construction project management that seeks to engage collaboration and efficiency between relevant project stakeholders, namely project owner, architect, and contractor in all phases of the project. The IPD is especially relevant in the initial and planning phases of the project lifecycle since this is when team members and the appropriate procurement strategy is selected <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. The current form of IPD was created to relief the symptoms that can arise from the lack of transparency, trust, and collaboration throughout the project lifecycle <ref name=KPMG> ''KPMG, ''Integrated Project Delivery, Managing risk and making it work for all parties'', 2013 https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/10/integrated-project-delivery-whitepaper.pdf ' </ref>. The IPD is not suitable for all types of projects, and should depend heavily on the size, complexity, and the potential risk adversity of the project in scope.

	While the IPD can be a valuable method to ensure efficiency and transparency across business functions within a project team, preparing for the execution and implementation of the IPD can be a tedious task. The success of the IPD relies immensely on a set of behavioral and contractual principles, but also on setting specific goals, assigning, and defining the correct team member roles and lastly, setting up a governance model that safeguards the knowledge sharing <ref name=KPMG> ''KPMG, ''Integrated Project Delivery, Managing risk and making it work for all parties'', 2013 https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/10/integrated-project-delivery-whitepaper.pdf ' </ref>.		While the IPD can be a valuable method to ensure efficiency and transparency across business functions within a project team, preparing for the execution and implementation of the IPD can be a tedious task. The success of the IPD relies immensely on a set of behavioral and contractual principles, but also on setting specific goals, assigning, and defining the correct team member roles and lastly, setting up a governance model that safeguards the knowledge sharing <ref name=KPMG> ''KPMG, ''Integrated Project Delivery, Managing risk and making it work for all parties'', 2013 https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/10/integrated-project-delivery-whitepaper.pdf ' </ref>.

S163796 at 19:57, 28 February 2021

2021-02-28T19:57:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:57, 28 February 2021
Line 31:		Line 31:


	IPD and traditional delivery methods		===IPD and traditional delivery methods===
	~~----~~

	The purpose of industries such as construction and design has remained the same for many years, but as the world is constantly and rapidly changing, so are the requirements and expectations for new complex projects – this sparked the initial desire for the Integrated Project Delivery <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. The concept of delivery methods as we know them started in the 1940s <ref name=journal> ''Association of Engineering, Project, and Production Management (EPPM-Association), "Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, ''Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): An Updated Review and Analysis Case Study''", 2020, 10(2), 147-161 ' </ref>, and did not include IPD, but instead more traditional delivery methods such Design Build, Design-Bid-Build and Construction Management.		The purpose of industries such as construction and design has remained the same for many years, but as the world is constantly and rapidly changing, so are the requirements and expectations for new complex projects – this sparked the initial desire for the Integrated Project Delivery <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>. The concept of delivery methods as we know them started in the 1940s <ref name=journal> ''Association of Engineering, Project, and Production Management (EPPM-Association), "Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, ''Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): An Updated Review and Analysis Case Study''", 2020, 10(2), 147-161 ' </ref>, and did not include IPD, but instead more traditional delivery methods such Design Build, Design-Bid-Build and Construction Management.
Line 58:		Line 57:


	The participants of the multi-party contractual agreement		===The participants of the multi-party contractual agreement===
	~~----~~

	IPD bounds project owner, designer/architect, and contractor/construction manager together using a single multi-party contractual agreement. A multi-party contractual agreement is a special form of contract that acts as a framework for a highly collaborative project management environment <ref name=multi> ''The American Institute of Architects, ''C191- 2009 Multi-Party Agreement - IPD'', https://www.aiacontracts.org/contract-documents/18471-multi-party-agreement----ipd ' </ref>. In this way risks, success criteria and responsibility areas are jointly established by the participants of the agreement.		IPD bounds project owner, designer/architect, and contractor/construction manager together using a single multi-party contractual agreement. A multi-party contractual agreement is a special form of contract that acts as a framework for a highly collaborative project management environment <ref name=multi> ''The American Institute of Architects, ''C191- 2009 Multi-Party Agreement - IPD'', https://www.aiacontracts.org/contract-documents/18471-multi-party-agreement----ipd ' </ref>. In this way risks, success criteria and responsibility areas are jointly established by the participants of the agreement.
Line 119:		Line 117:


	Performance goals		===Performance goals===
	~~----~~

	[[File:TriangleIPD.png\|300px\|thumb\|right\|Iron Triangle (own figure)]]		[[File:TriangleIPD.png\|300px\|thumb\|right\|Iron Triangle (own figure)]]
Line 132:		Line 129:


	Application of IPD in project management		===Application of IPD in project management===
	~~----~~

	Integrated Project Delivery is as mentioned a special method for delivering a construction project, and due to this, the project management roles are of course also carried out in an untraditional manner.		Integrated Project Delivery is as mentioned a special method for delivering a construction project, and due to this, the project management roles are of course also carried out in an untraditional manner.

S163796 at 19:54, 28 February 2021

2021-02-28T19:54:33Z

Show changes

S163796 at 19:31, 28 February 2021

2021-02-28T19:31:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 28 February 2021
Line 18:		Line 18:


	1. Level One Collaboration: This is can be explained as the daily and expected form of collaboration between project members/colleagues, as I referred to as “Typical Collaboration.”		*'''Level One Collaboration'''
			:This is can be explained as the daily and expected form of collaboration between project members/colleagues, as I referred to as “Typical Collaboration.”

	2. Level Two Collaboration: This is referred to as “Enhanced Collaboration” and can have some contractual obligations.		*'''Level Two Collaboration'''
			:This is referred to as “Enhanced Collaboration” and can have some contractual obligations.

			*'''Level Three Collaboration'''
			:This is the level of collaboration, which is applicable for IPD as a delivery method, where members are bound by a multi-party contractual agreement and hence is denoted as “Required Collaboration.”

	3. Level Three Collaboration: This is the level of collaboration, which is applicable for IPD as a delivery method, where members are bound by a multi-party contractual agreement and hence is denoted as “Required Collaboration.”

	The level of collaboration not only applies to whether IPD is viewed as a philosophy or delivery method, it is also what differentiates IPD from traditional delivery methods.		The level of collaboration not only applies to whether IPD is viewed as a philosophy or delivery method, it is also what differentiates IPD from traditional delivery methods.
Line 41:		Line 45:

	The Design-Bid-Build delivery method usually includes three phases namely design, procurement, and construction. The phases are typically carried out sequentially and independent of each other <ref name=del> ''Chris Vaeth, ''Delivery Methods Analysis and Comparison'', 2019, https://mccowngordon.com/delivery-methods-analysis-and-comparison/' </ref>.		The Design-Bid-Build delivery method usually includes three phases namely design, procurement, and construction. The phases are typically carried out sequentially and independent of each other <ref name=del> ''Chris Vaeth, ''Delivery Methods Analysis and Comparison'', 2019, https://mccowngordon.com/delivery-methods-analysis-and-comparison/' </ref>.


	'''Construction Management (CM)'''		'''Construction Management (CM)'''
Line 75:		Line 80:
	== Application of Integrated Project Delivery ==		== Application of Integrated Project Delivery ==

	The paper Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref> is almost a holy grail of information when understanding the dynamics of IPD, and lists several fundamental principles that should be applied when performing IPD.		Integrated Project Delivery is not a tool or a form of analysis that the project owner can apply to ensure a successful project, it is rather a project management style or more specifically a delivery method that creates almost a symbiosis between project owner, architect and contractor. The paper Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref> is almost a holy grail of information when understanding the dynamics of IPD, and lists several fundamental principles that should be applied when performing IPD.
	The paper divides the principles into two categories, namely behavioral and contractual.		The paper divides the principles into two categories, namely behavioral and contractual.
	The behavioral principles relate to human decisions and beliefs, while the contractual principles are much more formal and are included in the contractual agreements.		The behavioral principles relate to human decisions and beliefs, while the contractual principles are much more formal and are included in the contractual agreements. There are no correct way of ensuring or implementing these principles, instead it through feedback and experience that the principles are reinforced throughout the project's phases.
	Some of the principles of each category is explained below, while the rest is described further in the paper <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>.		Some of the principles of each category are explained below, while the rest are described further in the paper <ref name=AGC2> ''A Joint Effort of the National Association of State Facilities Administrators (NASFA); Construction Owners Association of America (COAA); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers; Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); and American Institute of Architects (AIA), ''Integrated Project Delivery For Public and Private Owners'', 2010, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/IPD%20for%20Public%20and%20Private%20Owners_1.pdf' </ref>.


Line 172:		Line 177:
	*'''Eliminates out of pocket losses <ref name=AGC3> ''AGC of America Project Delivery Committee, ''IPD: Lessons from the Trenches'', 2009, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/AGC%20Webinar%20-%20IPD%20-%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Trenches%202-26-09%20-%206%20Per%20Page.pdf ' </ref>'''		*'''Eliminates out of pocket losses <ref name=AGC3> ''AGC of America Project Delivery Committee, ''IPD: Lessons from the Trenches'', 2009, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/AGC%20Webinar%20-%20IPD%20-%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Trenches%202-26-09%20-%206%20Per%20Page.pdf ' </ref>'''

	:When the designer is aligned with the other project participants, unforeseen out of pocket losses are reduced.		:When the designer is aligned with the other project participants, unforeseen out of pocket losses are reduced. Also, something that applicable for all team members is that open communication about finances from the beginning can provide great transparency and ensure that all delivery the highest quality within the given budget.

	*'''Liability risk reduction <ref name=AGC3> ''AGC of America Project Delivery Committee, ''IPD: Lessons from the Trenches'', 2009, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/AGC%20Webinar%20-%20IPD%20-%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Trenches%202-26-09%20-%206%20Per%20Page.pdf ' </ref>'''		*'''Liability risk reduction <ref name=AGC3> ''AGC of America Project Delivery Committee, ''IPD: Lessons from the Trenches'', 2009, https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Programs%20%26%20Industry%20Relations/AGC%20Webinar%20-%20IPD%20-%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Trenches%202-26-09%20-%206%20Per%20Page.pdf ' </ref>'''