flexiblefullpage
billboard
interstitial1
catfish1
Currently Reading

Behind the scenes of integrated project delivery — successful tools and applications

Behind the scenes of integrated project delivery — successful tools and applications

The underlying variables and tools used to manage collaboration between teams is ultimately the driving for success with IPD.


By Megan Donham, Associate Consultant, CBRE Healthcare | September 7, 2014
Photo: Tomasz Sienicki via Wikimedia Commons
Photo: Tomasz Sienicki via Wikimedia Commons

In order to better understand the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Model, let’s take a metaphorical trip to a doctor’s office. 

Imagine we are having a wound treated, a wound that was caused by diabetes. During our visit, we are seen by an endocrinologist to help us better manage our diabetes. We are then seen by a Nutritionist to help manage and plan our meals based on our health needs. Lastly, before leaving, a pharmacist stops by to provide medications on the spot. 

Some of you may be wondering, “What does this have to do with IPD?” Well, in the above example, this type of cross-discipline, co-location, and utilization of expertise, or “integrated care team,” as some call it, is part of a recent paradigm shift that the healthcare industry is feeling nationwide. 

This shift can be viewed as analogous to the IPD model. While IPD is deemed transformational and revolutionary based on its ability to mine risk through financial incentive, contracted in an Integrated Form of Agreement or Tri-Party Agreement (an agreement between the owner, architect, and contractor), it is how the three parties collaboratively work together. The underlying variables and tools used to manage collaboration between teams is ultimately the driving for success with IPD.

 

DAY-TO-DAY TOOLS FOR IPD

To ensure goals are met, it is imperative that teams identify and utilize an effective structure to hold every member accountable to a near-term degree. In project delivery, there are usually three main, big-picture goals that all team members are aiming to achieve: scope, schedule, and budget. What sets the IPD delivery model apart from others are the tools and structure implemented by the IPD team to deliver the project within or under budget while still meeting the owner’s needs.

To maintain accountability for a big-picture item, there must be a means by which teams can track their progress. If this is not done properly, it can lead to major issues ranging from budget overages to change orders to schedule slips. Ever heard the adage “out of sight, out of mind”? Well, to avoid falling into this pattern, many IPD teams engage in daily stand-up meetings. These meetings are brief, 10-20 minutes, where all three parties stand and review a list of items that require some type of action within the next week. This may seem short and redundant at first, but once team members own an action, the benefit of these meetings becomes very clear. 

Through the natural and innate human desire to succeed, these meetings drive every member of the team to be accountable, urgent, and collaborative with all three entities of the IPD agreement throughout all phases of the project. 

IPD allows these meetings to drive the big-picture goals because the architect, contractor, and owner are able to discuss construction and design items every day, through the design, preconstruction, and construction phases and all the way through closeout. 

Target Value Design (TVD) is a major tool in setting IPD apart from traditional methods. TVD breaks the mold of contractors providing estimates based on detailed design. Instead, estimates are based on a target cost which is collaboratively established amongst all team members. 

TVD in IPD diminishes the traditional “throw-it-over-the-wall” design since contractors and sub-contractors are brought on board in the design phase. This allows the designers to engage the people who will be procuring and finishing-out their projects as they design. This helps avoid design results that require re-work due to constructability and budget issues, de-value engineering and delay.

Stemming from TVD, an IPD team participates in PITs, or Project Implementation Team meetings, also known as Component Team Meetings. PIT meetings are comprised of interdisciplinary groups of project participants, and are crucial in achieving success with IPD. 

Typically with IPD, there are PIT teams for each major aspect driving the design and construction: MEP PIT, Civil/Site PIT, Structure PIT, Build/Fit-Out PIT, Equipment PIT, Food Service PIT, AV/IT PIT, Closeout PIT, etc. (there can be more groupings depending on the size of the project). These meetings are extremely successful and serve as the foundation of TVD. It is in these meetings that designers are able to engage and receive real-time feedback from the subcontractors and other team members who will be executing the design in the field. 

Also, like the stand-up meetings, the PIT meetings take place through all phases of the project, ensuring the designers are receiving real-time answers from subcontractors and vendors before construction has begun and often before final documents are issued.     

 

RESULTS

So let’s imagine a construction project that brought all major players on-board almost concurrently. With an owner’s vision, or preliminary program, the architect, contractor, and owner may all work together to establish the target-value with detailed estimates to drive expectations. 

The detailed estimate design originates in an environment that has harnessed and co-located all key players, of not only the design phase, but also the construction phase. Below is an example of how this type of environment and structure enhances project goals when utilizing IPD.

At a weekly MEP PIT meeting, the owner-representative informs the team that the owner has decided to change the original HVAC selection from a chilled water to a DX central AC plant. The mechanical contractor, present in the meeting, is able to get specifications for the DX system. The engineer and architect, also in attendance, are able to begin redesign work and plan changes. The contractor is able to revise pricing based on the new system selection and all other related aspects that will change. 

All of the rework and revisions are completed in less than a week and within budget. The schedule is not impacted and the plans are changed prior to pouring the slab. The team is thus able to collaborate and provide the owner an estimate of the affect the changes will have on important operational parameters such as heat/cool loads, maintenance, and facility operations cost, post-occupancy. 

Because of the nature and processes inherent in IPD, this issue did not impact the schedule or budget. The issue was brought up before construction had begun, the subcontractor was able to provide the designer and engineer with all necessary information and support to ensure constructability was guaranteed, and the design team was able to make the plan change prior to the release of final plans. What could have been a very pricey and time-consuming Change Order was mitigated through a collaborative re-planning session in which all valuable project team members participated.

 

CONCLUSION

The IPD method incentivizes all team members to work collaboratively to provide the client with the best possible product; a project that meets scope, maintains budget, and delivers on schedule. 

Like the Integrated Care Teams mentioned previously, an IPD team is a one-stop shop that is established during or even before design. This delivery method cultivates cross-discipline design, ideally before construction begins, through various tools that help to focus accountability on not just an individual level, but also a team-wide level. 

Both figuratively and literally, IPD provides a design and construction world without walls and fences. It instead provides a clear definition and structure of the near-term and long-term goals of the entire project team at large. Ambiguity is a major enemy of IPD, but utilization of the proper tools creates transparency in every aspect of design, budget, schedule, and construction. 

The project vision will be as clear to the owner as it is to the designers, contractors, and down through the entire project team. 

About the Author
Megan Donham is an Associate Consultant with CBRE Healthcare. She can be reached at megan.donham@cbre.com.

Related Stories

| Aug 11, 2010

Construction Specifications Institute to end support of MasterFormat 95 on December 31, 2009

The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) announced that the organization will cease to license and support MasterFormat 95 as of December 31, 2009. The CSI Board of Directors voted to stop licensing and supporting MasterFormat 95 during its June 16, 2009, meeting at the CSI Annual Convention in Indianapolis.

| Aug 11, 2010

Gensler among eight teams named finalists in 'classroom of the future' design competition

Eight teams were recognized today as finalists of the 2009 Open Architecture Challenge: Classroom. Finalists submitted designs ranging from an outdoor classroom for children in inner-city Chicago, learning spaces for the children of salt pan workers in India, safe spaces for youth in Bogota, Colombia and a bamboo classroom in the Himalayan mountains.

| Aug 11, 2010

F&S Partners merges with SmithGroup

F&S Partners, a Dallas architecture firm specializing in the design of educational, recreational, and religious projects, has merged with SmithGroup, a top 10 U.S. architecture/engineering firm. The 40-person office in Dallas will carry the name SmithGroup/F&S.

| Aug 11, 2010

Will Alsop to head up new RMJM studio

Will Alsop, the internationally acclaimed British architect and designer of the Glenwood Waterfront project on the Hudson River, is to turn his attention once again to the U.S. after announcing he is to create a studio called “Will Alsop at RMJM,” as part of the RMJM worldwide architectural firm.

| Aug 11, 2010

AECOM, WATG top BD+C's ranking of the nation's 75 largest hotel design firms

A ranking of the Top 75 Hotel Design Firms based on Building Design+Construction's 2009 Giants 300 survey. For more Giants 300 rankings, visit http://www.BDCnetwork.com/Giants

| Aug 11, 2010

Parsons Brinckerhoff, Dewberry among nation's largest multifamily design firms, according to BD+C's Giants 300 report

A ranking of the Top 75 Multifamily Design Firms based on Building Design+Construction's 2009 Giants 300 survey. For more Giants 300 rankings, visit /giants

| Aug 11, 2010

USGBC’s Greenbuild 2009 brings global ideas to local main streets

Save the planet with indigenous knowledge. Make permanent water part of your life. Dive deep water for clues to environmental success.  Connect site selection to successful creative concepting. Explore the unknown with Discovery Channel’s best known guide. These are but a few of the big ideas participants can connect to at USGBC’s Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, taking place on November 11-13, 2009 in Phoenix, Ariz.

boombox1
boombox2
native1

More In Category

Multifamily Housing

AEC inspections are the key to financially viable office to residential adaptive reuse projects

About a year ago our industry was abuzz with an idea that seemed like a one-shot miracle cure for both the shockingly high rate of office vacancies and the worsening housing shortage. The seemingly simple idea of converting empty office buildings to multifamily residential seemed like an easy and elegant solution. However, in the intervening months we’ve seen only a handful of these conversions, despite near universal enthusiasm for the concept. 




halfpage1

Most Popular Content

  1. 2021 Giants 400 Report
  2. Top 150 Architecture Firms for 2019
  3. 13 projects that represent the future of affordable housing
  4. Sagrada Familia completion date pushed back due to coronavirus
  5. Top 160 Architecture Firms 2021