Hall, D M (2017) The early stages of integrated project delivery: Institutionalization and impact on adoption of systemic innovations. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.
Abstract
This dissertation focuses on the early stages of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), an emerging form of project governance for complex projects in the Architecture/Engineering/Construction (AEC) industry. In Chapter Two, this work synthesizes findings from multiple accounts of IPD in the literature to frame the early stages of the institutionalization process. Specific attention is focused on the actions of Sutter Health acting as an institutional entrepreneur to construct IPD as a new form of institutional arrangement. Chapters Three and Four represent two parts of a mixed-method research design. Chapter Three qualitatively identifies how the presence of nine specific supply chain integration practices (SCIPs) often found on IPD projects contribute to the adoption of systemic innovations on AEC projects. These systemic innovations are typically resisted by the AEC industry because they cross professional and trade specializations, break industry standards, and redefine how existing modules are produced or fit together. Chapter Three unpacks in detail the individual role played by eight well-known SCIPs (project team colocation, strong owner leadership, early involvement of key stakeholders, multi-party contracts with shared risk and reward incentives, joint project control, fiscal transparency, lean construction processes, and Building Information Modeling) and proposes one additional SCIP (agile cost shifting) to facilitate the adoption of systemic innovation. In Chapter Four, the use of fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) tests the joint impact of these SCIPs across twelve California healthcare projects. The resulting analysis finds two 'causal pathways' of SCIPs for the adoption of systemic construction innovations. The causal conditions for the adoption of systemic design innovations are an owner's vision for innovation and the identity of a project as a flagship and not one of the identified SCIPs. However, further analysis reveals teams do need SCIPs to more effectively manage the cost and schedules of these projects. This more granular understanding of SCIPs that can be used in theory and in practice to facilitate supply chain integration on IPD projects and to increase the adoption of systemic innovations on AEC projects.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Levitt, R E; Dossick, C S and Fischer, M A |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | project team; healthcare; standards; building information model; building information modeling; governance; innovation; integration; leadership; lean construction; project control; project delivery; specialization; owner; professional; stakeholders; qualitative comparative analysis |
| Index terms: | dissertation, complex project, systemic innovation, supply chain integration, project team, transparency, project control, project delivery, presence, identity, module, research design, owner, institutionalization, building information modelling, governance, construction innovation, integration, integrated project delivery, qualitative comparative analysis, specialization, lean construction |
| Subjects: | information systems, organizational analysis, sociology, professional development, management, supply chain integration, project delivery, control systems, business, research design and methodology, building construction, architectural elements, research methods, contractual arrangements, environmental science, strategic project management, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Site Management, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management, Supply Chain Management, Procurement, Sustainability, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| 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