Bilbo, D; Bigelow, B; Escamilla, E and Lockwood, C (2015) Comparison of construction manager at risk and integrated project delivery performance on healthcare projects: A comparative case study. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 11(1), pp. 40-53. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
This study provides information and a basic overview on Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) as project delivery methods while contrasting their performance in the design and construction of two healthcare facilities. The study identifies benefits as well as challenges from applying IPD and CMR as project delivery methods on healthcare facilities. The research is based on a comparative case study of two completed healthcare projects. Quantitative data was collected to compare: square foot cost, schedule changes, number of requests for information (RFIs), and change cost percentage. Qualitative data was also collected through interviews with members of the project management teams. This study contributes to the body of knowledge in construction by comparing the quantitative data collected. It then goes a step further providing the perceptions of project team members using both CMR and IPD to gain a deeper understanding of why the differences occur. By comparing CMR and IPD on projects that are similar in size, scope, and location, stakeholders in future projects can make an informed decision, based on empirical study, regarding the delivery methods that aligns best with their project goals and challenges.; This study provides information and a basic overview on Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) as project delivery methods while contrasting their performance in the design and construction of two healthcare facilities. The study identifies benefits as well as challenges from applying IPD and CMR as project delivery methods on healthcare facilities. The research is based on a comparative case study of two completed healthcare projects. Quantitative data was collected to compare: square foot cost, schedule changes, number of requests for information (RFIs), and change cost percentage. Qualitative data was also collected through interviews with members of the project management teams. This study contributes to the body of knowledge in construction by comparing the quantitative data collected. It then goes a step further providing the perceptions of project team members using both CMR and IPD to gain a deeper understanding of why the differences occur. By comparing CMR and IPD on projects that are similar in size, scope, and location, stakeholders in future projects can make an informed decision, based on empirical study, regarding the delivery methods that aligns best with their project goals and challenges.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | project delivery; integrated project delivery; contracts; construction manager at risk; health facilities; building construction; project management; comparative studies; perceptions; risk management; decision analysis |
| Index terms: | body of knowledge, building construction, integrated project delivery, project management team, interview, health facility, project delivery, project team, project management, empirical study, comparative study, design and construction, risk management, decision analysis, construction manager at risk, delivery method, case study |
| Subjects: | research methods, project management theory and practice, delivery method, building construction, decision analysis, data collection methods, construction type, risk assessment, profession, research design and methodology, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, project delivery |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Procurement, Construction Technology, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here