2019
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000654
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Team Integration and Owner Satisfaction: Comparing Integrated Project Delivery with Construction Management at Risk in Health Care Projects

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
17
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These include early involvement of key participants, shared risk and reward, multiparty contract, collaborative decision-making and control, liability waivers among participants as well as jointly developed project goals. Furthermore, a need for more integration in delivering construction projects is critical to cover the limitations of the traditional DBB method, which leads to the development of various cultures that results in severe inefficiency and high costs of inadequate interoperability as well as high levels of data and team fragmentation that even CM and CMR methods were not able to overcome [28][29][30][31]. Indeed, these traditional delivery approaches have historically resulted in a profound number of claims, high risks, delayed schedules and over-priced projects [32].…”
Section: Project Delivery Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These include early involvement of key participants, shared risk and reward, multiparty contract, collaborative decision-making and control, liability waivers among participants as well as jointly developed project goals. Furthermore, a need for more integration in delivering construction projects is critical to cover the limitations of the traditional DBB method, which leads to the development of various cultures that results in severe inefficiency and high costs of inadequate interoperability as well as high levels of data and team fragmentation that even CM and CMR methods were not able to overcome [28][29][30][31]. Indeed, these traditional delivery approaches have historically resulted in a profound number of claims, high risks, delayed schedules and over-priced projects [32].…”
Section: Project Delivery Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, during the construction stage, the CM has the liability of the construction works for a high price [12]. Shortly, including the CM in the early stages, CMR increases the collaborative feature of projects and differentiates from other types of PDM [13]. Accordingly, CMR reduces the need for modifications because of the dialogue maintained between the two main parties (designer and CM) within the project.…”
Section: Project Delivery Methods (Pdm)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A difusão de pesquisas sobre o IPD demonstra a recorrência da discussão sobre a temática (OSBURN et al, 2018). O IPD tem atraído interesse, tanto do meio acadêmico, como do setor industrial da construção civil (KIM et al, 2016;CHOI et al, 2019), sendo visto como uma alternativa para superar problemas recorrentes na construção civil, e limitações vinculadas aos métodos de contratação tradicionais (ROY et al, 2017;ZHANG;HUANG;PENG, 2018).…”
Section: Gestão and Tecnologia De Projetosunclassified