The integrated project delivery method (IPD)
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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 setting specific goals, assigning, and defining the correct team member roles and setting up a governance model that safeguards the knowledge sharing. [1] | 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 setting specific goals, assigning, and defining the correct team member roles and setting up a governance model that safeguards the knowledge sharing. [1] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Understanding IPD == | ||
| + | |||
| + | There are two main perspectives of IPD, one being philosophical and the other being a delivery method [2]. 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 [2]. 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. | ||
| + | The more complex distinction between the perspectives is based on the level of collaboration, and according to the paper on Integrated Project Delivery for Public and Private Owners [2] there are three levels. | ||
| + | |||
| + | BILLEDE | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. Level Two Collaboration: This is referred to as “Enhanced Collaboration” and can have some contractual obligations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 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 [2]. The concept of delivery methods as we know them started in the 1940s [5], and did not include IPD, but instead more traditional delivery methods such Design Build, Design-Bid-Build and Construction Management. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Design Build (DB)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Design Build is a form of project delivery that is based on a collaborative approach where design and construction are bound by a single contractual agreement. This allows for flexible knowledge sharing and hence an increased overall value. [6] | ||
| + | |||
| + | BILLEDE | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Design-Bid-Build (DBB)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. [6] | ||
| + | |||
| + | BILLEDE | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Construction Management (CM)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Introduced in the 1960s [5] the Construction Management project delivery approach focuses on the construction manager functioning as a consultant to the project owner in the design phases and hence undertaking the construction related risks [6]. Like the DBB this form of project delivery does not rely too heavily on cross-function collaboration. | ||
| + | |||
| + | BILLEDE | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The traditional forms of project delivery are notably different from the IPD in terms of the level of collaboration. However, this does not imply that the IPD is always the better choice when selecting the appropriate project delivery method. The IPD certainly is very ideal for large and complex projects, it also requires a lot of time and effort. For smaller and less complex projects the IPD would probably consume too many resources compared to the value it could provide. The benefits and limitations of the IPD is discussed further later in the article. The traditional types of project delivery are therefore still very relevant and often used in various industries. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 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 [7]. This risks, success criteria and responsibility areas are jointly established by the participants of the agreement. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Owner (O)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The owner is naturally the person with the overall responsibility of the project and should be the one to reinforce the success criteria and goals that have jointly been defined by the project participants. Additionally, the owner steers the direction of the project and ensures that the rest of the project members follow the project pipeline accordingly. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Designer (D)/Architect (A)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | For traditional delivery methods the designers are usually not too involved in the actual project management, but rather communicates with the client and based on their wishes provide a design to project manager. When designers are a part of an IPD, they are much more engaged in the management of the project and acquire a deeper insight into the cost structures, time schedules etc., which can have a positive impact on the quality and lead time of their design deliverables [8]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Contractor (C)/Construction manager (CM)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The C/CM is a very important role since the C/CM is responsible for achieving the goals of the project [8]. 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 [8]. 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. | ||
Revision as of 14:50, 21 February 2021
The integrated project delivery method (IPD)
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. [9] 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. [1] The IPD is not suitable for all types of projects, but depends 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 setting specific goals, assigning, and defining the correct team member roles and setting up a governance model that safeguards the knowledge sharing. [1]
Understanding IPD
There are two main perspectives of IPD, one being philosophical and the other being a delivery method [2]. 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 [2]. 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. The more complex distinction between the perspectives is based on the level of collaboration, and according to the paper on Integrated Project Delivery for Public and Private Owners [2] there are three levels.
BILLEDE
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.”
2. Level Two Collaboration: This is referred to as “Enhanced Collaboration” and can have some contractual obligations.
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.
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 [2]. The concept of delivery methods as we know them started in the 1940s [5], and did not include IPD, but instead more traditional delivery methods such Design Build, Design-Bid-Build and Construction Management.
Design Build (DB)
Design Build is a form of project delivery that is based on a collaborative approach where design and construction are bound by a single contractual agreement. This allows for flexible knowledge sharing and hence an increased overall value. [6]
BILLEDE
Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
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. [6]
BILLEDE
Construction Management (CM)
Introduced in the 1960s [5] the Construction Management project delivery approach focuses on the construction manager functioning as a consultant to the project owner in the design phases and hence undertaking the construction related risks [6]. Like the DBB this form of project delivery does not rely too heavily on cross-function collaboration.
BILLEDE
The traditional forms of project delivery are notably different from the IPD in terms of the level of collaboration. However, this does not imply that the IPD is always the better choice when selecting the appropriate project delivery method. The IPD certainly is very ideal for large and complex projects, it also requires a lot of time and effort. For smaller and less complex projects the IPD would probably consume too many resources compared to the value it could provide. The benefits and limitations of the IPD is discussed further later in the article. The traditional types of project delivery are therefore still very relevant and often used in various industries.
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 [7]. This risks, success criteria and responsibility areas are jointly established by the participants of the agreement.
Owner (O)
The owner is naturally the person with the overall responsibility of the project and should be the one to reinforce the success criteria and goals that have jointly been defined by the project participants. Additionally, the owner steers the direction of the project and ensures that the rest of the project members follow the project pipeline accordingly.
Designer (D)/Architect (A)
For traditional delivery methods the designers are usually not too involved in the actual project management, but rather communicates with the client and based on their wishes provide a design to project manager. When designers are a part of an IPD, they are much more engaged in the management of the project and acquire a deeper insight into the cost structures, time schedules etc., which can have a positive impact on the quality and lead time of their design deliverables [8].
Contractor (C)/Construction manager (CM)
The C/CM is a very important role since the C/CM is responsible for achieving the goals of the project [8]. 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 [8]. 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.
