Integrated Project Delivery. (IPD): The owner’s goal who’s primary motive is to bring the teams together early on in the project. A full implementation of BIM also requires the project teams to collaborate from the inception stage and formulate model sharing and ownership contract documents. *NOTE: True IPD employs various constructs, many of which the County is precluded from using by state law. (such as the use of multi-party contracts, and profit sharing). The County’s integrated delivery approach leverages many aspects of IPD that are allowed by law.
Integrated Project Delivery. A Working Definition established phasing terminology that is used in the AIA/AIACC IPD Guide, the AIA’s Integrated Project Delivery contract documents, and other contracts and forms. The standard IPD phases are Conceptualization, Detailed Design, Implementation Documents, Buyout, and Construction. Figure 4: Validation Process While the method used for defining project scope is also important, it must reflect the owner’s deep goals and the incentive plan (i.e. shared risk/reward) must be coordinated with both the scope and the onwer’s deep goals.. For example, if the deep goal is designing and constructing the project as efficiently as possible, the project scope needs to be specified in detail. By setting efficiency as the primary goal, the team is incentivized not to include items unless they were reasonably inferred from the initial program. If the scope is vague, disputes are likely. In contrast, if the deep goal is maximizing value for a defined budget, the incentives should reward the team for increasing the project value rather than reducing project cost. A minimal scope must still be defined, but the contract should focus more attention on how to reward exceeding the minimum scope. If time to market is the most significant goal, then incentivization should first favor schedule reduction and then seek minimizing cost or maximizing value. In practice, most projects contain a blend of goals and the scope definition must reflect a similar balance. The content of the validation documents will differ depending upon the method chosen to define scope. The documents may contain programming information and a prioritized list of goals. They may include schematic drawings and a matrix of included features. They may have a list of elements categorized as required or desirable. Whatever method is chosen, they should be sufficient to guide the team in developing the project to meet the owner’s goals.
Integrated Project Delivery. In addition, the Owner believes that attaining that value proposition will be benefited by implementing Integrated Project Delivery, promoting project efforts to pursue the following objectives: increasing the relatedness of members of the Integrated Project Delivery Team ("IPD Team"); collaborating throughout design and construction with all members of the IPD Team: planning and managing the Project as a network of commitments; optimizing the Project as a whole, rather than any particular piece; and tightly coupling learning with action (promoting continuous improvement throughout the life of the Project). Specific actions in support of these objectives are set forth elsewhere in the Contract Documents.
Integrated Project Delivery. Case Studies, Joint Report of the American Institute of Architects California Council and the American Institute of Architects, 2010. ficial.13 The possibility of superior profitability also lowers psychological barriers to entry.14 Managers considering whether to commit their or- ganizations to IPD will consider its potential benefits to their organi- zation. Shared reward not only makes risk more tolerable, it provides a basis for rationally preferring IPD projects. Thus, a workshop of design and construction managers concluded: Shared Risk/Reward Pool The Group felt that structuring participant’s compensation to be raised or lowered according to performance against predetermined targets is the most important and effective driver—it provides a monetary reason to collaborate.15 In contrast, once an organization has committed to an IPD project, its employees are motivated by a combination of intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards. Participants in IPD projects have commented that the positive, non-antagonistic focus of IPD is, itself, a significant reward. Thus, the supposed disagreement may simply reflect the viewpoint dif- ferences of persons considering IPD compared to those already engaged in a collaborative project. Shared risk and reward should extend to all key IPD participants, not just the owner, contractor, and designer. Key participants are those who have a significant effect on project outcome, particularly if project outcome is tied to their successfully working with others. These sub- contractor and consultant key participants can be brought into the IPD agreement by flow-through provisions in their respective agreements with the contractor and designer, or can be included in the IPD agree- ment by “joining agreement” amendments.
Integrated Project Delivery
