Quantifying Performance for the Integrated Project Delivery System as Compared to Established Delivery Systems

Abstract

Integrated project delivery (IPD) is an emerging construction project delivery system that collaboratively involves key participants very early in the project timeline, often before the design is started. It is distinguished by a multiparty contractual agreement that typically allows risks and rewards to be shared among project stakeholders. Because IPD is becoming increasingly popular, various organizations are expressing interest in its benefits to the architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) industry. However, no research studies have shown statistically significant performance differences between IPD and more established delivery systems. This study fills that missing gap by evaluating the performance of IPD projects compared to projects delivered using the more traditional design-bid-build, design-build, and construction management at-risk systems, and showing statistically significant improvements for IPD. Relevant literature was analyzed, and a data collection instrument was developed and utilized in detailed interviews to gather quantitative performance data from 35 recently completed projects. Univariate data analyses, such as t-tests and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests, were performed to evaluate IPD performance. The results indicate that IPD achieves statistically significant improvements in 14 metrics across six performance areas: quality, schedule, project changes, communication among stakeholders, environmental, and financial performance. The major contribution of this paper is demonstrating that IPD provides higher quality facilities faster and at no significant cost premium. These results would be extremely valuable in the hands of decision makers to enable them to choose the appropriate delivery system for their projects.

Performance of seven highway construction contracting methods analyzed by project size

“…D-B contracts both design and construction functions to a single entity to maximize the contractor's flexibility in design, construction techniques, and material selection (Charoenphol et al, 2016;El Asmar et al, 2013;Ellis et al, 1991;Minchin et al, 2013). Because design and construction are performed by one entity, D-B contractors can overlap design and construction processes to accelerate the project schedule and, subsequently, cut cost.…”

Integrated Construction Project Delivery System in the U.S. Public Sector: An Information Modeling Framework

“…However, the terms such as "IPD-ish" and "IPD-lite", focusing mainly on the collaboration without the use of a multiparty contract (MC) , are also quite common in the construction industry (El Asmar et al 2013;NASFA et al 2010;Wickersham 2009). …”

“…It is the most important and influential IPD principle. AIA (2007) Broader participation is desired in IPD than in traditional methods (AIA 2007) among owner, designer, and general contractor as a minimum (AIA-AGC 2011), and preferably with key trades such as mechanical, electrical, and plumbing subcontractors as well as key vendors (AIA 2007;El Asmar et al 2013). The purpose of forming an integrated team early in the project is to take advantage of the assortment expertise in the design process to better understanding of probable proposition of design decisions.…”

“…It can be achieved by the use of relational contracts (El Asmar et al 2013;Thomsen et al 2010) that requires at a minimum that owners, architects and contractors share the risks and rewards of project performance. Such an arrangement results in aligning the interests of project participants with the project interests (AIA 2012).…”

“…The benefits of implementing IPD include enhanced cost and schedule predictability (AIA 2010); better cost, quality and schedule performance, fewer project changes, enhanced communication among participants (El Asmar et al 2013). …”