Kelly, D and Ilozor, B (2022) Performance outcome assessment of the integrated project delivery (IPD) method for commercial construction projects in USA. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(14), pp. 2808-2816. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
This article presents the results of a quantitative study evaluating relationships between various project outcome metrics and the use of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). Conflicting results within the literature about these relationships, coupled with significant industry interest, motivated this study. Data from 93 building construction projects were analyzed in a multivariate context controlling for the contribution of covariates unrelated to delivery methods. At the 95% confidence level (CL), significant performance outcomes were not found for IPD projects. Though, at the 90% CL, lower levels of cost and schedule growth were found to be significant for IPD projects when compared to projects completed using other common delivery methods. Also, IPD healthcare projects were found to have significantly fewer Requests for Information (RFI) than non-IPD healthcare projects. Lastly, urban projects showed significantly higher levels of cost and schedule growth, along with increased RFI and punchlist frequency counts, than either suburban or rural projects. Recommendations include exercising caution in the use of IPD as a means to check cost and schedule growth while improving design quality. Project owners should also moderate expectations that IPD is a solution to many of the industry’s problems as postulated by prevalent qualitative and trade literatures.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | commercial construction; construction quality; cost growth; integrated project delivery; project performance; quantitative analysis; schedule growth |
| Index terms: | design quality, integrated project delivery, building construction, quantitative analysis, construction quality, performance outcome, delivery method, commercial construction, owner, project outcome, project performance, schedule growth |
| Subjects: | professional practice, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, value management, construction type, project completion, quality assurance, delivery method, project controls, building construction, sociology, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Procurement, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Time Control, Quality Management, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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