Integrated Project Delivery And Integrated Practice In AEC Industry - Strengths, Weaknesses And Adoptions In Canada

• Identify and define “integrated project delivery” and contrast its definition to that of “integrated practice”.
• Research and present the all strengths and weaknesses of IPD for AEC participants.
• Identify IPD adoptions in Canada and those projects completed using IPD frameworks in Canada.
• Discuss the relationship between BIM and IPD for project delivery.
• Research and assess the limitations to applying an IPD for construction projects.
• Outline and assess to the client the different procurement options possible for their projects.
• Compare the strength and weaknesses of the methods.
• Perform a complete risk assessment and summary for the proposed project.
• Define and discuss a SWOT analysis for the project.
• Assess the projects feasibility as proposed.
• Identify the steps to completing an IPD for the proposed project.
• Discuss, present and apply the requirements of the set out stage and first IPD phase for the proposed project.
• Conclude a recommendation to the owner for the projects viability, feasibility and procurement.

What is Integrated Project Delivery and Integrated Practice?

Integrated project delivery is a collaborative method used in the building. The basic role of this method is to fast enough to develop a cost-effective and high-quality project. The process takes into account the various stakeholders in the business that is, government agencies, contractors, construction companies, architects, engineers, and even the owners. It also ensures a collaborative team so formed under one contract. The method is exposed to various risks and at the same time rewards can be identified. Also, IDP integrates a variety of practices, systems, and business plus financial structures (Forbes, and Ahmed, 2010). To have a viable IDP, different approaches are used for example public-private partnerships, design-build, and design assist. On the other hand, an integrated practice involves a single firm single-handedly offering to do the architecture and engineering works in a given construction. A mixed method ensures there is reduced fragmentation in the building (Forbes, and Ahmed, 2010).

A strength of using the process is that the information is widely shared between the stakeholders. This facilitates faster decision making when it comes to scheduling, making the budgets and sourcing the materials. When there is a good information technology infrastructure, integrated project delivery will help in the management of costs, safety measures and solving any field conflicts. The result will be reduced waste and hence increased productivity in the given project.

To the owner of the IPD, the process produces a high-quality design since the architect assigned to do the work plays a significant role. The architect also answers directly to the owner; this ensures that the progress updates are according to what the owner wants. The direct communication facilitates the achievement of quality work. Also, there is complete continuity regarding the preferences and goals throughout the project as well as the construction process.  

The owner also gets a manageable budget. This is because the owner gets to determine the costs of the whole project early enough in the development stage. The design is also cost effective since the architect has full access to the construction and pricing of all the processes, goods information used for the project. The architect also determines the total amount used in the project; therefore, their project is delivered within the estimated budget reducing the chances of having budgets overruns or increases.

The owner also gets to enjoy flexibility in the procurement of all the construction materials that need to be used in the project. This is because the owner can begin the project just traditionally and then incorporate the integrated delivery later. There is also no need of maintaining cumbersome bidding or the RFP process. The owner can adopt the open books used for trades. Also, the project delivery is faster since it is fast-tracking without the possibility of having loss of cost control.

Strengths of Integrated Project Delivery for AEC Participants

To the architect, there are additional profits realized. This is because there is the possibility of sharing in the project savings. There is also increased efficiency in the design since there is less labor cost incurred during the construction documents phase. The architect also gets a share in the construction revenue.

The architect also gets the marketing advantages. This includes the ability to guarantee the schedule and price of construction. He also offers the option to delay the project structuring design. The architect can also be able to cultivate the contractors as a source of work. Furthermore, the architect can promise the maximum owner efficiency and deliver since he is directly involved in the project.  

Another strength of using IPD at AEC for the architect is that they have control over the construction process. This way, they can be able to avoid unwise decisions during the construction work. The architect can also be able to minimize lousy publicity after experiencing design problems. The architect also accepts the entire responsibility of the project; therefore, there is increased satisfaction for all the participants.

The architect also gets reduced liability. Since the architect is fully involved in the design of the project, the claims for obvious design omissions are reduced. Complaints can also be reduced due to the collaborations and cooperatives used rather than having administration adversarial. To add on this, the accidents because the contractor insures them (De Marco, and Karzouna, 2018).

The process also has some strengths to the contractors in that the contractor gets the full project design from the architect. The whole process is single-handedly done by the architect and presented to the contractor. Moreover, the price of the project is negotiated and not competitive bidding (Arroyo, Tommelein, and Ballard, 2012). Therefore it is more profitable for the contractor. The contractor also has enhanced relationships with other people in the projects, for example, the suppliers and the subcontractors. Since every step is documented and the information is widely shared, there is reduced the chance to have litigations and claims.

The contractor also gets increased profits. This is because there is no overhead cost of marketing for the project. There is also a reduced contingency for bidding errors. Moreover, there is no contingency for adversarial administration.

Even though the IDP innovation has various strengths to the different participants at AEC, it also has some defects. The contractors and the designers might not be familiar with the IDP. This would reduce the chances of increased efficiency in the project, and the contractors and designers might opt to step down from the project. It could lead to delays in delivery of the project.  

Strengths of Integrated Practice for AEC Participants

The project also involves the participation of the whole team in decision making. The owner might have a hard time to get all the team members to agree on one thing since everyone might have different opinions and relevant reasons to support their views.  

The owner might also have difficulties in getting finances because some financiers may not know what IDP involves and they might not even support the idea. Some of the reasons that may make lenders disinterested with the innovation are that there are limitations on liability and there is potential for the bonus paid (Ebrahimi, and Dowlatabadi, 2018).

Since the liability is limited, there is someone who suffered the losses when economic damages are experienced. Currently, the insurance industry is looking into the possibilities of having products to ensure projects against construction risks when IPD is used.

For there to be strong teams, there need to be influential leaders too. The process requires the leaders and managers to have strong ambitions for the project and to apply their leadership skills otherwise the project entirely may not be successful. Furthermore, managers and leaders should be positive, earnest and very active and avoid lax participation.  

AEC in Canada plays a significant role in the economy. It further has a substantial impact on society and the global environment generally. Different government bodies are praising the adoption of IDP innovations in the construction industry. The basic idea behind such developments is that the changes are generating increasing value in the construction industry. The Canadian government has not been left behind. It is currently advocating for the adoption of the IDP innovation in the construction industry. The Canadian architecture body that is AECO represented about $300 G in the total capital expenditure for the year 2013 which approximates to about 20% of the Canadian gross domestic product. Also, the construction industry employed approximately 1.3 million people which is about 7.5% of the total workforce in Canada (Tahrani,, Poirier, Aksenova, and Forgues, 2015). This shows that the AECO industry plays a vital role in improving the economy of the country.

All the users of IDP are much impressed with the performance, and they all say they would not want to go back to the traditional ways of construction. In North America, about 12o projects have used IDP innovation in construction. 12 of the projects are based in Canada. An excellent example of a project delivered using the IDP innovation is the mosaic center. It is a structure occupying 30,000 square foot and was built with approximately 12 % of the cost estimated if it used the traditional process. It also took much less time to be completed since it took four months less to complete (Forgues, and Farah, 2013).  

Weaknesses of Integrated Project Delivery for AEC Participants

The very first project to be completed using IDP in Canada was the moose jaw hospital. It was completed in time and way under the regular budget by $30 million. In the delivery of the project, the lean construction approach was used together with the building information modeling. The team for the project included; Stantec &DeVenny group architects and engineers, black and McDonald mechanical and electrical, john black and associates, provincial ministry of health, health authority and Graham and Boldt construction.

Other projects in Canada that have adopted the use of IDP includes; FHHR regional hospital and the Oakville arena project among others

Building information modeling acts as a digital representation of the functional and physical attributes of a given facility. The innovation is a shared knowledge resource for information concerning a particular facility thereby forming a reliable basis of decisions to be made during the life-cycle of the project. The BIM model provides the potential construction participants with the opportunity to get a very collaborative approach in design and construction. BIM was adopted much earlier than IPD, therefore BIM has been used by designers more. BIM has been noticed to deliver significant benefits when used collaboratively. However, the full collaboration of BIM with other delivery methods has not been fully featured, but rather in many cases, BIM is used in isolation (Azhar, 2011).

On the other hand, integrated project delivery is a newly emerging innovation. There are countable projects which have been completed using this innovation. It is aimed at creating a cooperative environment between the different stakeholders. Therefore, the contractors, designers, owner and principal trade contractors have to come together and sign an agreement. The project delivery entails quality and timely completion of projects within the budget.

A relationship exists between these two innovations. IPD is entirely different to BIM in that IPD is a process whereas BIM is a tool. To achieve the full benefits of these two innovations, they need to be used collaboratively. The application of BIM as a tool is essential in project delivery for IPD. IPD generally optimizes the project results, contributes to the reduction of waste for a given project, maximizes efficiency and increases the value of the project to the project owner. Using the two collaboratively results into reduced risk of defects, decreased waste of materials and minor issues during construction (Asmar, Hanna, and Loh, 2013).

The collaboration between BIM and IPD increases flexibility especially when there is a change of circumstance. By combining the advantage of using these two innovations in construction, more significant and more improved results are achieved (Bryde, Broquetas, and Volm, 2013).  

IPD Adoptions in Canada

Despite the many benefits that come along with the implementation of IPD in construction projects. The process also has some limitations. The limitations include the impacts and the effects of the use of the IPD in organizations. Some of the possible changes are the organizational culture which might have an overall impact on the project delivery. Some of the limitations include;

For successful project delivery, all the team members are required to understand what is expected of them. Therefore, they may be needed to pass other tasks to their fellow members of the team. A lot is required from each member such as availability, functionality, and innovation. The process will lead to the identification of both the weaknesses and strengths of the members. The limitation comes in that the influential members will be forced to work harder than the other (Ghassemi, and Becerik-Gerber, 2011).

Another limitation is that IPD is not always considered to be a lean delivery model when it comes to the personal time used.  In ensuring that all information and documents are available, there has to be open communication between the team members. Too much sharing of information may lead to other people taking advantage of the data and using it against the project. This will result in a crisis in the project.  

Another limitation is that cash flow is required early in the investment. A project cannot be started without the total cash on the budget physically there (Lahdenperä, 2012).  Another limitation is that when the time is limited, and there is no complexity, it could be impossible to find the savings which will cover the investment that had to be made upfront.

TVDSB is a school building which is located at 301 Worley road in London which has been underused. The school is willing to contract users according to their accommodation review. A private developer wishes to purchase the property. The developer, however, wants to submit that application for reworks to be done on the usage of the building and wants to incorporate other uses. In other words, the developer wants to redesign the school building to fit different uses other than the previously sued ones. He estimated the budget for the redevelopment to be about 9 to eleven million.

Procurement plays a significant role in project design and delivery. This is because the expected results have to fit in the approximated budget and therefore the purchase of goods and services has to be taken into account (Naoum, and Egbu, 2016). In the procurement of different products and services, the concept of minimizing waste and maximizing value has to be taken into account. Some of the viable procurement options include;

Projects Completed Using IPD Frameworks in Canada

Restricted tendering is one of the most used methods of procurement. The technique involves restricted orders on different suppliers. The requests are restricted in that there is a limit of the number of tenders that can be received. The competition is limited in this case. The procuring team has to invite the tenderers to place their bids. This further aims at getting the best and not just the cheapest. The procuring organization identifies the supplies and request them to apply for tenders and after that gives the bid to the most competitive bidder. This option of procurement could be favorable for this project in that the procuring entity first selects the suppliers.  

Another procurement option in development of the school building is the request for proposals. The suppliers have to write a proposal giving details of why they are the best fit for the particular project. The main aim of using an RFP is to insist on quality. Suppliers have to identify and understand their ins and outs of quality service management. The procuring department is out on the hunt for the most valued supplier. When they can be able to identify the best, they will ensure quality project delivery. The suppliers have to prove that the best fit to be in the project. they, therefore, are required to submit a financial proposal and another proposal giving details on their capabilities.

Open tendering is another viable procurement option for this project. In open bidding, the suppliers are given a chance to apply for tenders. The opportunities are not limited as it is the case for restricted tendering. Through this method, the procuring department can be able to achieve the most cost-effective procurement method (Masterman, and Masterman, 2013) . They can also be able to identify the different varieties in the market and choose the most appropriate one. A significant disadvantage of using open tendering is that quality may not be assured and the process takes a very long time, and this may reduce the productivity of the project delivery.  

Restricted tendering

Strengths

• The procurement process takes lesser time compared to open Tendring
• The procuring entity can be able to get the best
• The already chosen tenderers are perceived to be able to provide quality
• It is competitive compared to single sourcing; therefore, the cost is reduced

Weaknesses

• The cost levels of tenders in restricted tendering are much higher compared to a method like open Tendring. This is because the competition is low since the procuring entity selects the tenderer
• The process discourages and excludes small contractors that are trying to establish themselves in the market. This reduces the chances of innovation in the construction industry.
• There is biasness involved. This is because firms may be excluded from the selected list of tenderers for unknown reasons and other firms may be on the tenderers list for unknown reasons too for example personal issues, and lack of awareness.

Request for proposals

Strengths

• Use of this method can introduce the contractor to new suppliers, energy and ideas
• The process ensures there is a fair selection and further provides the evidence
• The vendors existing in the project will be given a chance t justify their services and goods
• The method provides a detailed vision of the timeline, the exact product and service needed how to supply it.
• There is a clearer picture of the prices, availability and the value of the resources.  

Weaknesses

• The process is bureaucratic thereby wasting a lot of time for the project
• The method costs more since the procuring entity has to go with the best despite the price charged.
• The process involves a lot of paperwork which could be tedious
• The formal screening process, meetings, and reviews do take up a lot of project time.

Open tendering

Strengths

• There is high competition regarding prices; therefore, the procuring entity will have reduced cost
• The method gives the opportunity to new upcoming firms
• There is no biasness as everyone is invited to apply
• There are increased chances for innovation since new technology can be brought on board.

Weakness

• The project takes a lot of time for completion of the procurement procedure.
• The process also requires that there be strict adherence to the procedures
• The method does not focus on quality instead it focuses on the cost
• There is a lesser possibility of developing long-term relationships with the suppliers(BUnDGAARD, KLAZInGA, and VIsseR, 2011).  

The project is exposed to someof risks which tend to reduce the viability of the project. Some of the significant risks that the project could face is that the expenses may not fit the budget. This all depends on the procurement method chosen (MacDonald, and Mills, 2013). The developer has a budget of 9-11 million. This money may not be able to cover the whole redevelopment causing gaps in the project delivery. The business could run out of funds, and the project remains incomplete which would be a waste for the developer. Therefore, a more transparent budget needs to be established to ensure all the expected expenses fit in the 9-11 million. The redevelopment should be of a higher quality; therefore, the procuring department should ensure they select the procurement method keenly.

The project is a redevelopment; therefore, the design that needs to be done is much simpler than if the plan was to be started from scratch. The project also has a chance to use integrated project delivery which will reduce the time used for the project as well as reduce the cost. Another viable strength for this project is that the developer has a high budget with a range set aside for the project. Therefore, the contractors have to ensure the project fits the budget.

One major weakness is that the project is a development; therefore, an estimation of the total amount of money to be used might be easy to determine. The project could end up costing more than the estimated amount. Another weakness of the project being a redevelopment is that the initial plan was not done using integrated project delivery process; therefore adoption of this process could not fit the project accordingly.

A major threat is the changes in the economy. The estimated amount of the project cost might not fit the budget when there are changes in the marketplace. The project could take more time to complete leading to increasing in prices of the materials to be used. In a nutshell, changes in the economy could cause an increase in the budget, and the project may overrun the budget.  

The most significant possibility is that the project owner can adopt the integrated project delivery. Through the use of this method, quality can be guaranteed, reduced waste and distribution within the projected time, as well as the reduced cost, can be achieved.

The project viability is positive. The very first thing is to determine if the project is technically feasible. In this case, the redevelopment of the school building is highly feasible since a more improved structure can be developed and fit the uses intended. The project is also feasible within the cost estimated. The estimated cost for the delivery of this project is 9-11 million which is feasible and can be used to achieve the expected results. The third element in determining feasibility is to determine if the project is profitable. The redevelopment of the building is profitable because the developer has an idea of what the current market wants and how it can fit the current needs rather than the building being underused.

For the delivery of the project, the following steps have to be followed:

Conceptualization: all the stakeholders meet in a formal meeting to analyze all the available solutions towards the delivery of the proposed project (Lahdenperä, 2012). The developer, contractor, architect among others gather to ensure a less complicated process is developed.

Design: this is the second step, and all evaluations from the first stage are added to the design of the project. At this point, goals are set, and all the construction codes will be identified.

Implementation: the third step is implementing the project delivery process. After the design process is carefully done, design data analysis and computer modeling are done. At this point, BIM and CAD may be adopted to ensure the expected results are achieved.

Construction: after implementation, construction kicks on. The benefits of using IPD are realized at this point since the project is expected to run smoothly without delays and conflicts if the previous steps are carefully followed.

Operation: this is the point of completion of the project. An analysis is done to determine if the initial goals set are achieved.

The set-out stage and the first IDP phase are the first steps into project delivery. The first phase focuses on project planning. At this point, the stakeholders meet in a formal meeting and analyses expectations of the project (Becerik-Gerbe et. Al. 2011). For this particular project, the expectations are that the redevelopment to be covered in a budget of 9-11 million. The budget is planned, and the expected results are derived.

Furthermore, the time for delivery is analyzed. The project timeline has to be set according to the amount of work to be done. This ensures that there is a reduced waste of resources and time.  

The redevelopment of the school building was an excellent idea since there will be increased usage for the building. It is said that this building is being underused therefore an opportunity to improve is profitable. The project is viable and feasible since there is the adoption of IPD which ensures quality, timely and cost-effective performance. Through the use of the right procurement method, the project performance can be achieved accordingly, and the results will be according to the outlined goals. This, therefore, necessitates that the project only uses IPD in the redevelopment.  

References

Kent, D. C., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010). Understanding construction industry experience and attitudes toward integrated project delivery. Journal of construction engineering and management, 136(8), 815-825.

Forbes, L. H., & Ahmed, S. M. (2010). Modern construction: lean project delivery and integrated practices. Crc Press.

Azhar, S. (2011). Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leadership and management in engineering, 11(3), 241-252.

Lahdenperä, P. (2012). Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Construction Management and Economics, 30(1), 57-79.

Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013). The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). International journal of project management, 31(7), 971-980.

El Asmar, M., Hanna, A. S., & Loh, W. Y. (2013). Quantifying performance for the integrated project delivery system as compared to established delivery systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(11), 04013012.

Ghassemi, R., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2011). Transitioning to Integrated Project Delivery: Potential barriers and lessons learned. Lean construction journal.

Jung, Y., & Joo, M. (2011). Building information modelling (BIM) framework for practical implementation. Automation in construction, 20(2), 126-133.

Porwal, A., & Hewage, K. N. (2013). Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework for public construction projects. Automation in Construction, 31, 204-214.

Korkmaz, S., Riley, D., & Horman, M. (2010). Piloting evaluation metrics for sustainable high-performance building project delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 877-885.

Azhar, S., Khalfan, M., & Maqsood, T. (2015). Building information modelling (BIM): now and beyond. Construction Economics and Building, 12(4), 15-28.

Fewings, P. (2013). Construction project management: an integrated approach. Routledge.

Baiden, B. K., & Price, A. D. (2011). The effect of integration on project delivery team effectiveness. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 129-136.

Forbes, L. H., & Ahmed, S. M. (2010). Modern construction: lean project delivery and integrated practices. Crc Press.

Masterman, J., & Masterman, J. W. (2013). An introduction to building procurement systems. Routledge.

Lopez, R., & Love, P. E. (2011). Design error costs in construction projects. Journal of construction engineering and management, 138(5), 585-593.

Naoum, S. G., & Egbu, C. (2016). Modern selection criteria for procurement methods in construction: A state-of-the-art literature review and a survey. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(2), 309-336.

BUnDGAARD, K., KLAZInGA, D., & VIsseR, M. (2011). Traditional procurement methods are broken: can early contractor involvement be the cure?. Terra et Aqua, 124(1), 25-30.

Li, Y. Y., Chen, P. H., Chew, D. A. S., Teo, C. C., & Ding, R. G. (2011). Critical project management factors of AEC firms for delivering green building projects in Singapore. Journal of construction engineering and management, 137(12), 1153-1163.

Becerik-Gerber, B., Gerber, D. J., & Ku, K. (2011). The pace of technological innovation in architecture, engineering, and construction education: integrating recent trends into the curricula. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 16(24), 411-432.

Arroyo, P., Tommelein, I., & Ballard, G. (2012). Deciding a sustainable alternative by ‘choosing by advantages’ in the AEC industry. In Proc. 20th Conf. of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), San Diego, CA (pp. 41-50).

Tahrani, S., Poirier, E. A., Aksenova, G., & Forgues, D. (2015). Structuring the adoption and implementation of BIM and integrated approaches to project delivery across the Canadian AECO industry: Key drivers from abroad. In Proc., Int. Construction Specialty Conf. of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.

Forgues, D., & Farah, L. M. (2013). Back to the future: Is the canadian AEC education adapting to the new needs of its industry. CSCE 2013, 9.

Ebrahimi, G., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2018). Perceived Challenges in Implementing Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): Insights from Stakeholders in the US and Canada for a Path Forward. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 1-24.

De Marco, A., & Karzouna, A. (2018). Assessing the Benefits of the Integrated Project Delivery Method: A Survey of Expert Opinions. Procedia computer science, 138, 823-828.

MacDonald, J., & Mills, J. (2013). An IPD approach to construction education. Construction Economics and Building, 13(2), 93-103.