Raisbeck, P; Millie, R and Maher, A (2010) Assessing integrated project delivery: A comparative analysis of IPD and alliance contracting procurement routes. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
The proponents of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) claim it can potentially achieve superior results over other procurement models. The American Institute of Architects defines IPD as: “a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and construction” (AIA, 2007). This aspirational description suggests why IPD is said to be the next evolutionary step in collaborative contracting. In order to begin to assess these claims IPD is examined in relation to its theoretical sources and genealogy in lean construction, concurrent engineering and the collaborative structures of Alliancing. While fundamental similarities exist between Alliance and IPD procurement structures, improvements have been added to IPD contracts and processes which appear to respond to new technologies. These improvements include: Building Information Modelling (BIM) protocols, improved project management techniques to improve workflow and cost management as well as early stage collocation in a 'Big Room' environment. These innovations point to the need to understand the pre-conditions for IPD adoption: the take-up of BIM technology by contractors and sub-contractors and an understanding of IPD collaborative negotiations in practice. Whilst IPD is clearly a credible procurement model it requires further empirical and applied research in order to establish its widespread adoption.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alliancing; integrated project delivery; procurement; project management; building information model |
| Index terms: | integrated project delivery, owner, project management technique, comparative analysis, cost management, alliance contracting, building information modelling, alliancing, lean construction, efficiency, new technology, workflow, fabrication, project management, project delivery, negotiation, concurrent engineering, sub-contractor, architect |
| Subjects: | project delivery, innovation and technology management, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, operations management, practitioner, profession, information systems, building construction, sociology, conflict resolution, project management theory and practice, engineering methods, accounting and finance, performance management, manufacturing engineering, management |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Quality Management, Site Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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