Differences between IPD and Traditional Procurement Approaches

In a truly integrated project, the project flow from conceptualization through to implementation and closeout differs significantly from a non-integrated project. Conventional terminology, such as schematic design, design development and construction drawings, create workflow boundaries that do not align with a collaborative process (AIA, 2007b).

Traditional delivery and contracting approaches contemplate separate silos of responsibility that, in practice, yield inefficiencies whenever there is a hand-off from one silo to another (AIA, 2007a). IPD, however, represents a behavioural change in the industry by breaking down the silos of responsibility, requiring close cooperation among all major participants, and aligning participants’ success to project success. Traditional project phases will be adjusted and refined to accommodate an integrated project team and their project participation. Construction experience deployed early in the design process results in better decisions regarding what will be built, in line with decisions about who is going to build it and how it will be built.

Figure 3.9: Comparison Between Traditional Procurement and the IPD Approach (AIA, 2007b)

In addition to shifting design decision-making forward, the redefinition of phases is driven by two key concepts: the integration of early input from consultants, contractors, installers, fabricators and suppliers and the ability to model and simulate the project accurately using BIM tools. These two concepts enable the design to be brought to a much higher level of completion before the documentation phase begins. Thus the first three phases of the integrated project: conceptualization, criteria design, and detailed design involve more effort than their counterparts in the traditional flow. The result is that the project is defined and coordinated to a much higher level prior to the construction’s start than is typical with traditional delivery methods, enabling a more efficient construction phase and a potentially shorter construction period (AIA, 2007a).

Table 3.3 shows a comparison between Traditional Project Delivery methods and IPD ones. In practice, integrated project delivery exhibits fundamental differences from traditional models in two primary areas: team assembly and project phasing/execution.

Table 3.3: Traditional Project Delivery Methods vs Integrated Project Delivery (AIA, 2007a)

Factor Traditional Project Delivery Integrated Project Delivery

Teams Fragmented, assembled on a “just- as-needed” or “minimum-necessary” basis, strongly hierarchical and controlled

An integrated team entity composed of key project

stakeholders, assembled early in the process, open and

collaborative Process Linear, distinct, segregated;

knowledge gathered “just-as- needed” information hoarded; silos of knowledge and expertise

Concurrent and multi-level; early contributions of knowledge and expertise; information openly shared; stakeholder trust and respect

Risks Individually managed, transferred to the greatest extent possible

Collectively managed, appropriately shared Compensation/

Reward

Individually pursued; minimum effort for maximum return; (usually) first- cost based

Team success tied to project success; value-based

Communications/ Technology

Paper-based, 2 dimensional; analog Digitally based, virtual; Building Information Modelling (3, 4 and 5 dimensional)

Agreements Encourage unilateral effort; allocate and transfer risk; no sharing

Encourage, foster, promote and support multi-lateral open sharing and collaboration; risk sharing The “MacLeamy Curve” in Figure 3.10 shows how the IPD approach transforms the traditional phases of projects. According to the AIA (2007a) the function of the IPD approach is to optimise project results, increase project worth to the client, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and construction. IPD involves a joint contract requiring architects, designers, general contractors and key trade contractors to work together from the start of a project, making the best use of BIM as a collaborative tool.

Figure 3.10: The “MacLeamy Curve” IPD Impact on the Design Process (MacLeamy, 2004)

3.7.4 Roles and Responsibilities

IPD seeks to break down the traditional contracting barriers, with separated silos and responsibilities, by having all major participants focus on achieving shared goals. IPD encourages early contribution of knowledge and experience and relies on the proactive involvement of the main participants. Responsibility is placed on the most able person with decisions being made on a “best for project” basis AIA (2007b). IPD has a clear defined work scope for each participant where the consultants and the contractors still remain primarily responsible for design and construction respectively. The section below highlights the separate roles and responsibilities of the consultants, contractors and the client (AIA, 2007a):

i. Consultants

a. Lead and actively involved in the design process where other team members will also participate.

b. Are required to perform in an earlier stage certain services that are traditionally performed later in the project. The resulting advancement of services potentially increases the volume of services provided in the design phase.

c. Frequent interactions with other team members during the design phase necessitates that designers provide numerous iterations of their design documents to other team members for their evaluation and input.

d. An additional responsibility to track throughout the design phase both the status of iterations provided to other team members and the nature and substance of the input received from them.

e. Communications are facilitated by the collective team and do not rely on a single gate-keeper.

ii. Contractors

a. Provide strategic services such as schedule production, cost estimating, phasing, systems evaluation, constructability reviews, and early purchasing programs at early stage of involvement.

b. Provide expertise and fully participate in the design of the project. The result is a greater role in commenting on and influencing design innovation.

c. Provide, on a continuing basis, estimating services and/or target value design services during the design phase.

iii. Client

a. Actively involved in evaluating and influencing design options.

b. Participate in establishing design alternatives at an earlier stage than is typical in a traditional project.

c. Involved more often to assist in resolving issues that arise on the project- related specifics and be required to act quickly in this regard to allow the project to continue efficiently.