MacDonald, J and Mills, J (2013) An IPD approach to construction education. Construction Economics and Building, 13(2), pp. 93-103. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The construction industry worldwide is moving towards more collaborative working practices, such as integrated project delivery (IPD). The era of the Master Builder has passed; modern construction projects are too complex for one person to understand all aspects. New specialist disciplines are emerging, with experts engaged at earlier stages of the design process. However, this collaborative approach is not reflected in the current education of architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) professionals. Students of the separate disciplines are generally educated in isolation from the others. On graduation, they are then expected to be able to work in integrated teams without prior training in multidisciplinary teamwork. This contributes to the poor levels of trust and inadequate information sharing that plague the industry and prevents it from fully embracing the productivity savings that BIM (building information modelling) and IPD promise. Academics of the AEC disciplines also work in isolation, and the same courses are developed from scratch every time a new academic arrives at an institution. This paper proposes an integrated approach to the teaching of AEC subjects, including a framework to assist academics in adapting their existing curricula, and reports on some initial trials carried out in three Australian Universities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; collaborative education framework; IPD; plim |
| Index terms: | teamwork, savings, working practice, construction education, building information modelling, construction project, information sharing, builder, construction industry, integrated team, integrated approach, productivity, design process, integrated project delivery |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, data exchange, contractual arrangements, professional education, practitioner, information systems, management, production management, industry analysis, design methods |
| Topics: | Education, Project Management, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Research Practice, Procurement, Business Strategy |
| 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