A Theoretical Comparison of Traditional and Integrated Project Delivery Design Processes on...

CITA BIM Gathering 2013, November 14th -15

th 2013

A Theoretical Comparison of Traditional and Integrated

Project Delivery Design Processes on International BIM

Competitions

Michael Serginson1, George Mokhtar

2 and Graham Kelly

3

Faculty of Engineering & Environment & BIM Academy

Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear

E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Abstract ̶ The Architectural Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry experiences

higher rates of iteration, material wastage and poor cost management in comparison to other

design industries. In an attempt to address such inefficiencies and control project budgets,

various Governments are insisting that Building Information Modelling (BIM) is used by the

appointed design teams on high value public buildings. Such legislation has been introduced

in order to encourage a standardised level of collaborative working throughout the design

process by enhancing interoperability of project information between design and

construction professionals. In this paper, the MacLeamy Curve, a theoretical graphical

representation of how integrated project delivery (IPD) processes improve efficiencies and

allow for the reduction of costs by resolving issues during the earlier stages of the project, as

well as other associated benefits are tested on both traditional and IPD design processes

within two 48 hour international openBIM competition projects: Build London Live; and

Build Qatar Live. The projects are compared by analysing the planned project programme

against the reality, measured through recorded project exchanges, using a graphical

representation. The findings of this paper suggest several recommendations, including: a

collaborative design process appears to reduce iteration and results in a more comprehensive

conceptual design at an early stage in comparison to a traditional process; more information

and documentation is produced; and the overall programme is exceeded. Such findings

suggest improved time, cost and design quality control.

Keywords ̶ BIM, IPD Processes, Case Studies, Colocation, Collaboration.

I BACKGROUND

a) Current State of AEC Industry

The construction industry is a major contributor to

the global economy. It delivered around £69 billion

GVA (£107bn output) to the UK economy in 2010

employing around 2.5 million workers and as such is

a key contributor to UK growth (1). It has a similar

impact on other nations economy and is one of the

largest industries in the United States (2) and

European Union.

Despite its scale and importance to

national economic performance, the industry has a

well-documented record of inefficiency. Productivity

in the construction industry has been declining since

1964 (3) with the productivity within the US field

construction industry relative to all non-farm

industries from 1964 through to 2004 (4). During

this 40-year period US productivity outside of

construction has doubled. The industry is often

characterized as inefficient, wasteful, combative and

fragmented with each team responsible for its own

silo of work and attempting to maximise their

individual profit in the area of their own expertise

(5; 6). In the meantime, other industries have

increased productivity and increased customer value

(7), resulting in a need of improvement within the

AEC industry (8).

Horman and Kenley (10) report that

across a variety of circumstances and contexts,

49.6% of construction operative time is devoted to

wasteful activities. Studies reveal that such activities

can take up 26-40% of the overall project time (11;

12), with other research efforts indicating that 40-


th 2013

60% of all construction phases are running longer

than planned, which could increase the likelihood of

projects exceeding their budget (13; 14). Such

actions have been defined as non-value adding

activities (NVAAs) and are often a result of

inadequate design information, (15).

b) Government Mandates for Change

Construction is heavily influenced by the direct and

indirect levers from the public sector, which

produces around 30% of the UK industry’s output,

therefore commitments to renew and expand

national infrastructure are significant to the sector

(16). In an attempt to improve performance, various

governments have identified the implementation of

Building Information Modelling (BIM). A key

aspect of BIM protocols is Integrated Project

Delivery (IPD), a formal collaboration that occurs

throughout the design, planning, and execution

phases of a project (17). IPD as a delivery method

attempts to address the problems of waste and

adversarial relations in the AEC industry, and to

increase efficiency and the likelihood of project

success (6; 18; 19). Since 2007, the American

Institute of Architects has developed methodologies

and contracts to support integrated philosophies

(21). In the UK in 2002, the Strategic Forum for

Construction published ‘Accelerating Change’,

which also called for integrated project teams,

integrated supply chains and integrated work flows

(22). The Construction Industry Council (CIC) has

been at the forefront of developing and leading the

UK Government’s mandate that public sector

centrally procured construction projects will be

delivered using BIM by 2016.

BIM adoption is often categorised using

the Bew-Richards BIM Maturity Index (Fig.1). In

order for the AEC industry in the UK to reach Level

2 by 2016, the CIC have laid the foundations for the

production of a ‘digital plan of works’ which will

help to inform an industry aligned process. The new

workflow appears in the form of the PAS1192-2

specification which sets out standards for

collaboration and interoperability between the

various disciplines involved in Level 2 BIM projects

(23). This process envisions a reconfiguration of the

design process, shifting design decisions to earlier

times in the process and redefining the industry

accepted definitions. This process suggests a

movement from the sequential design/working

processes traditionally adopted by the professional

bodies of the AEC industry, with examples of this

change are evident in the recent introduction of the

updated RIBA Plan of Work (24) and the AIA

Outline Plan of Work (18). The guidance for the new

processes includes IPD, which consists of a

multidisciplinary team of design and construction

professionals assembled to complete a project, who

are bound together by alternative forms of

agreement that require team members to share risk

and reward, contribute equally, and employ

alternative processes and technologies (17).

The Macleamy Curve visually represents

the shift in timing and classification of design phases

(Fig. 2). The single most important change with IPD

processes is the forward shift of work volume to

earlier stages of design. The IPD process leverages

early contributions of knowledge and expertise

through utilization of new technologies, expanding

the value each discipline with the design team

provide throughout the project lifecycle. The

outcome is the opportunity to design, build, and

operate as efficiently as possible. The AIA describe

the new process as: “Building upon early

contributions of individual expertise, these teams are

guided by principles of trust, transparent processes,

effective collaboration, open information sharing,

team success tied to project success, shared risk and

reward, value-based decision making, and utilization

of full technological capabilities and support” (18).

Fig. 1: Bew-Richards BIM Maturity Index.

Fig. 2: Macleamy Curve (reproduced from AIA, 2013).

Much has been written about the apparent

benefits of BIM and the IPD process, including

findings from previous research efforts on live

projects, observed benefits are fewer change orders

(70.3%), cost savings (70.3%), and shorter schedule


th 2013

(69.4%)” (25). Eastman et al. (4) organized the

benefits of BIM utilisation into four categories: pre-

construction benefits (concept and feasibility),

design benefits (visualization, auto correction of

changes, 2-D plan generation, etc.), construction and

fabrication benefits (synchronized planning, clash

detection, automated fabrication, quantity survey

and estimating, etc.), and post-construction benefits

(facilities management and building operations).

Based on such benefits of the widespread adoption

of BIM, the initial estimated savings to UK

construction and its clients is £2bn per annum. This

means that it is a significant tool for UK

Government to reach its target of 15-20% savings on

the costs of capital projects by 2015 (26; 27). The

news of the reported benefits along with the

scheduled requirement of utilising Level 2 BIM on

all UK Government public projects by 2016 (28) has

resulted in a BIM boom within the AEC industry,

resulting in the UK being recognised by its peers as

one of the leading nations in the exploitation of BIM

technology and processes with an internationally

respected centrally-led programme (29).

c) Issues with Transition from Traditional

Processes

Despite the leading edge of the industry pushing the

frontiers of BIM exploitation, the majority of

businesses are still developing capability in this area.

According to the National Building Specification

BIM Survey in 2013 (30) only 39% of the UK

construction industry were aware of, and are using

BIM. The report also provides evidence, and that

89% of users (and 91% of non-users) accepted that

BIM requires changes in their workflow, practices

and procedures. The scenario is similar in the US,

and despite several professional organisations

supporting the advancement of IPD (18; 31), and

prior research efforts demonstrating its benefits and

challenges (32; 33; 21; 34), the number of projects

using IPD remains small (24, 35). There are

generally few guidelines that outline factors that

contribute to the success of multidisciplinary IPD

projects available (36) and the reliability, and

validity of any findings to date are said to be suspect

due to the inherent limitations of ethnography in

relation to sample size (16).

The evidence suggests that there are

cultural barriers due to the unwillingness of the

industry disciplines to vary from its traditional own

narrow leadership and methods that it is accustomed

to. The challenge is overcoming the inertia and

changing the mind-set built on this traditional

hierarchy (37; 6). Research by Rooke, Seymour and

Fellow (38) found this was the case in practices

embedded within the UK construction industry as

they observed a culture of exploiting mistakes in the

bidding documents, scheduling work to maximize

delay impact, and proactive/reactive claims. They

also propose that while these tactics harm the

industry by hindering competitiveness, and

decreasing efficiency, the practices have become an

integral part of the culture of the UK construction

industry and cannot be easily changed.

The move from 2D CAD to BIM is

demonstrated in the BIM Maturity diagram (fig 1),

but does not convey the fundamental changes that

will be required to the AEC industry. The shift from

level 0 BIM to level 1 BIM has been compared to

the shift from drafting on tracing paper to CAD (39).

However, the reality is that the outputs of issuing of

2D drawings on paper/PDF files, is still

commonplace or an “electronic replica”. In stark

contrast, the shift from level 0 to level 2 BIM

requires: collaborative and integrated working

methods; teamwork with closer ties between all

designers on a project (39); increased decision

density at early project stages; an obligation to

produce deliverables for future BIM processes not

associated with their normal duties; and work under

different contractual agreements. With IPD a

relatively new concept and not yet widely accepted

within the industry (24), one of the greater industry

challenges is the need to embrace new working

methods and leave behind some old assumptions and

stereotypes (39) and the capacity of participants to

adjust to new work behaviours is critical to project

success (18).

Smith et al. (40) identified three areas for

future research with respect to IPD: Environment;

Organization; and Technology. More specifically,

they identify the characteristics of the physical

environment including the social, cultural, and

behavioural context. Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber

(37) also identified cultural (trust and teamwork),

and technological (interoperability between

participants) as major industry barriers to the

transition from traditional processes. Literature

review by Ilozor and Kelly (17) stated that there is a

lack of thorough quantitative analysis and rigorous

independent verification of the many qualitative

assertions made within the literature with respect to

IPD’s potential positive impact on productivity, cost,

schedule, quality, etc.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on

an underlying problem facing AEC practices: despite

the wide coverage of the perceived benefits of

adopting BIM protocols, processes and investing in

associated software, to date there has been a lack of

case studies on live projects to act as evidence of the

benefits of making the transition from traditional

processes. The paper uses two international, 48-hour

BIM competitions as case studies to compare

outputs and performance between a traditional

design process and an integrated project delivery

process. It should be noted that this paper is

describing IPD in terms of a collocated,


th 2013

collaborative process, rather than a contractual,

formal way of working as set out within in the AIA,

IPD Guide (18).

II RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research project uses two international BIM

competitions as case studies: Build London Live

2011 (BLL) (see Fig.3); and Build Qatar Live 2012

(BQL) (see Fig. 4). Both competitions were

organised by A-Site, a software for information

sharing, and held over 48 hours (GMT). Details of

the projects can be found in Table 1. Both

competitions are based on a fictitious project brief,

which is provided to participating teams 24 hours

prior to the competition start time. Each team may

consist of a range of AEC disciplines and are

challenged to complete the brief objectives within

the limited time period. All correspondence and

completed work is uploaded to a password restricted

project portal provided by competition sponsors A-

Site and judged by an independent panel of BIM

experts. Teams are awarded prizes in a range of

categories: best use of: BIM for design drama and

excitement; multidisciplinary BIM and use of

interoperability; BIM for sustainability or

constructability; as well as overall BIM effort. (41).

A team representing BIM Academy, consisting of a

number of design disciplines entered both

competitions (see Tables 1 & 2). Data for this study

was collated through observations from the authors

who participated in both competitions. This was

supplemented with documentation produced

throughout the process.

Fig.3: Build London Live 2012 Final External Perspective

Fig.4: Build Qatar Live 2012 Final External Perspective

Table 1: BLL and BQL project details

BIM Group BLL BQL

Site London,

England

Katuma, UAE

Stage Start

Start Day

Start Time

End Stage

End Day

End Time

RIBA: B

1 Mar 2012

09:00GMT

RIBA: E

3 Mar 2012

09:00GMT

RIBA: B

27 Nov 2012

09:00GMT

RIBA: E

29 Nov 2012

09:00GMT

Table 2: BIM Academy team roles for BLL and BQL

Role BLL BQL

BIM

Coordinator

BIM Academy BIM Academy

Architect

Structural

M&E

Cost

Management

Specification

Visualisation

Validation

Landscape

Pedestrian

Modelling

Ryder

Shed

Fulcro

Turner &

Townsend

BIM Academy

VNG

Northumbria

STEPS

Ryder

Cundall

Cundall

Turner &

Townsend

NBS

VNG

Northumbria

Colour-UDL

STEPS

As the case studies used are competition

projects, judged over limited design stages with no

contractual agreements in place, there are obvious

limitations to the findings. However, quantitative

data from BLL and BQL can be used to make

comparisons on a number of the suggested benefits

from current BIM and IPD literature. This includes

comparisons of: (a) physical project environment;

project management and technical characteristics

of data sharing, between the projects, as suggested

by Smith et al. (40); (b) programme accuracy,

showing the results of the iterations, or change

orders, in the design process; (c) the project


th 2013

management through comparison of planning and

decision making processes; and (d) number of

outcomes delivered, can also be used to compare

the case studies.

Both projects use the records of the BIM

Execution Plan (BEP) that outlines the initial

project management and programme to allow

comparison of the level of accuracy in project

delivery. The recorded number and times of

outcomes being uploaded to A-Site by the teams

are also used for comparison. The number of

change orders, or iterations, in the design process

is graphically represented using a Gantt chart

method used in previous research efforts (42) (see

Fig.5). This method also displays evidence for

project programme accuracy and numbers of

outputs. Finally, workflow diagrams will represent

the differences in the physical and technological

environment used in both projects. Table 3

summarises the findings comparison methods.

Fig.5: Graphical representation of design activities over

project time (Macmillan et al. 2002)

Table 3: Findings Comparison Methods

Research Area Presentation Method

Project Environment Diagram

Communications

Programme

Project Management

Outcomes

Diagram

BEP, Gantt Charts

BEP, Diagram

Asite Uploads, Awards

III RESULTS

a) Project Environment and Communication

Methods

Fig. 6: Comparison of Physical Environment and

Communication Methods

(ARC: Architect, SE: Structural Engineer; M&E:

Mechanical and Electrical Engineer; QS: Cost

Management; SPE: Specification; VAL: Validation;

BIMA: BIM Academy Co-ordination)

Fig. 6 shows the differences in physical environment

and technological communication between the two

projects. BLL has various disciplines working in

separate locations, with Asite and emails the primary

communication method used. BQL utilises design

team colocation allowing an increase of informal

face-to-face communication and ad-hoc input from

all disciplines throughout the design process.

b) Programme and Accuracy

Fig. 7: Comparison of Planned and Actual Project

Programme

Higher levels of iteration

expected along process

Medium levels of iteration

Tight bandwidth expected

with minor backtracking

expected as all projects

are unique


th 2013

The analysis of project programmes is displayed in

Fig. 7 presents a graphical representation of the case

studies project activities through a Gantt chart as

used by Macmillan et al. (42). The results clearly

show how the BQL process was followed more

accurately to BLL. The differences in BEP, physical

environment and communication methods appear to

influence the number of iterations in the process.

This suggests a project adopting an IPD process

(BQL) has a tighter ‘bandwidth’ to projects using a

traditional approach (BLL).

c) Project Management

Fig. 8: Comparison of Design Effort over Time of

Competition

Fig. 8 shows that the levels of design effort against

time are similar to that expected according to the

Macleamy Curve. It could be argued that BQL

would save costs due to reduced number of decisions

being made in the latter stages of the project. BLL

shows a steady increase in workload and decision

making as the disciplines within the team brings

their silos of work together at design development

stage. BQL places more emphasis on collaborative

working at the pre-design and schematic design

stages respectfully. This allows the majority of the

deliverables to be completed during the design

development stage, with the communication stages

being utilised to make refinements and produce

additional work beyond what was planned in the

BEP. In summary, this leads to a smoother

conclusion to the project. The findings support the

analysis of the BEP and project programmes as the

number of iterations in BLL are represented in

increased efforts at the latter stages of the project.

d) Project Outcomes

Table 4 shows the number of deliverables in the BLL

and BQL projects. The results suggest that the

planned outcomes were completed for both projects;

however, there is a significant increase in

deliverables in BQL as well as being more evenly

distributed across the duration of the competition.

The results also suggest that due to the efficiency

improvements in adopting an IPD approach, it was

possible for the team to produce additional

deliverables and uploads to Asite. It should be noted

that the BIM Academy team produced 821 uploads,

in comparison to approximately 200 per competing

team (41). Despite it not being possible to compare

competing team approaches, it suggests that an IPD

approach influences productivity levels.

Table 4: Comparison of Project Outcomes and

Awards

Role BLL BQL

Planned

Outcomes

20 30

Actual

Outcomes

Award

19

Use of BIM for

Interoperability

49

openBIM

Best Overall

BIM Effort

The significant difference in project

performance between BLL and BQL was also

recognised by the competition judging panel. BLL

received an award for Best Use of BIM for

Interoperability. BQL received the overall award, the

openBIM Best Overall BIM Effort.

IV CONCLUSIONS

There have been various Government measures

introduced to implement BIM and IPD processes in

order to tackle the inefficiencies of the construction

industry. Despite the perceived benefits and the UK

leading international research, there is evidence of

barriers in moving from the traditional AEC

processes. This paper uses two international BIM

competitions as case studies: one using a traditional

design process and one integrated project delivery, in

order to provide evidence to AEC professionals on a

number of issues raised in the current BIM and IPD

literature.

By comparing aspects of the case studies

in the following areas: (a) project environment and

communication; (b) programme and accuracy; (c)

project management; and (d) project outcomes, the

findings suggest several themes. Despite the

limitations of the case studies due to the absence of

contractual agreements and reduced project stages,

the findings suggest a number of themes, which, as

explored in the results section show that the IPD

process increases the programme accuracy, reduces

the work load at the end of a project and increases

the number of outputs.


th 2013

Firstly, it appears that colocation of the

design team in the same physical environment has an

influence on the levels of communication between

design disciplines. This results in tacit knowledge

transfer and rapid decision making, allowing the

project team to develop the design with reduced

levels of iteration. Secondly, the project adopting an

IPD process meant that they followed the project

programme more accurately leading to fewer design

iterations and a tighter ‘bandwidth’. Thirdly, the

project management of the process supported the

theory of the Macleamy Curve, with the IPD process

utilising higher levels of design effort at the early

stages of the project. Finally, the IPD process

resulted in an increased number of project

deliverables being completed and being more evenly

spread across the project’s duration. The BQL

project adopting the IPD process also achieved the

highest award available in comparison to BLL

project that used a traditional approach.

Future work is recommended in testing

similar aspects covered in this paper on live

construction projects.

REFERENCES

[1] HM Government, (2012) Building Information

Modelling. Industrial strategy: government and

industry in partnership, [Online]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste

m/uploads/attachment_data/file/34710/12-

1327-building-information-modelling.pdf

Accessed 1st May 2013

[2] U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Economic Analysis (2010). Gross Output by

Industry, Release Date: December 14, 2010.

Retrieved from

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=

5&step=1 on 2nd May 2013.

[3] Teicholz, P. (2004) Labor Productivity Declines

in the Construction Industry: Causes and

Remedies, AEC bytes Viewpoints. Retrieved

from

http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2004/issue

_4.html on May 2, 2013

[4] Eastman, C.A., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and

Liston, K. (2008). BIM handbook: a guide to

building information modeling for owners,

managers, designers, engineers, and

contractors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

[5] Pelburg, B.E. (2009) Contracting for Integrated

Project Delivery: ConsensusDocs, presented at

The 48th

Annual Meeting of Invited Attorneys,

Victor O. Schinnerer & Company, Inc.

[6] Lichtig, W.A. (2006) The Integrated Agreement

for Lean Project Delivery. Construction Lawyer

26 (3)

[7] Kieran, S. and Timberlake, J. (2004)

Refabricating Architecture, New York:

McGraw-Hill

[8] Gallaher, M.P., O’Connor, A.C., Dettbarn, J.L.,

and Gilday, L.T. (2004). Cost Analysis of

Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital

Facilities Industry. [Online]

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build04/art02

2.html accessed on 4th

June

[10] Horman, M. and Kenley, R. (2005)

‘Quantifying Levels of Waste Time in

Construction with MetaAnalysis’. Journal of

Construction and Engineering Management.

Vol. 131(1), pp. 52-61

[11] Ireland, V. (1995) The T40 project: process re-

engineering in construction, Australian Project

Manager, AIPM, 14 (5) pp. 31-37

[12] Han, S. H., Kim, D. Y., & Kim, H., 2008. Two-staged Early Cost Estimation for Highway Construction Projects. Report (2008), Civil & Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.

[13] Jergeas, G. F., Chishty, M. S. and Leitner, M. J. 2000. “Construction Productivity: A Survey of Industry Practices. 2000” AACE International Transactions, PM.06:01–07.

[14] Naoum, Shamil G. "Critical analysis of time

and cost of management and traditional

contracts." Journal of Construction Engineering

and Management 120.4 (1994): 687-705.

[15] Koskela, L. (1992) Application of the New

Production Philosophy to Construction.

Technical Report No. 72, CIFE, Stanford

University

[16] BIS (2012) BICS Economic Paper No. 18,

Industrial Strategy: UK Sector Analysis,

September 2012 [Online] Available at:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/BISCore/economi

cs-and-statistics/docs/I/12-1140-industrial-

strategy-uk-sector-analysis.pdf) Accessed 1st

May 2013)

[17] Ilozor, B. D. and Kelly, D. J. (2012) Building

Information Modeling and Integrated Project

Delivery in the Commercial Construction

Industry: A Conceptual Study, Journal of

Engineering, Project and Production

Management

[18] American Institute of Architects and AIA

California Council (2007). Integrated Project


th 2013

Delivery: A Guide. Retrieved from

http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS077630

on May 1, 2013.

[19] Autodesk White Paper (2008) Improving

Building Industry Results through Integrated

Practice. [Online]

http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/bim_and

_ipd_whitepaper.pdf

[21] Cohen, J. (2010) Integrated Project Delivery:

Case Studies, The American Institute of

Architects, California Council in partnership

with AIA [Online]

http://hga.com/sites/default/files/downloads/res

ources/ipd_casestudies_aiacc_final_010410_0.

pdf Accessed on: 2nd

May 2013

[22] Egan, John. "Accelerating change." A Report by

Strategic Forum for Construction, London.

2002.

[23] BIM Task Group (2013a) PAS1192-2 –

Overview [Online] Available at:

http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/pas11922-

overview/ Accessed 10th

May 2013

[24] Sinclair, D. (2012). BIM Overlay to the RIBA

Outline Plan of Work, London, United

Kingdom: RIBA

[25] Kent, D.C. and Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010).

Understanding Construction Industry

Experience and Attitudes Toward Integrated

Project Delivery, Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, 136(8), 815-

825. doi:10.1061(ASCE)CO.1943-

7862.0000188

[26] Wix, J. and Nisbet, N. (2008) Study into the

Business Case for Interoperable Building

Information Modelling (BIM), internal DTI

report 2008)

[27] Cabinet Office (2011) Government

Construction Strategy [Online]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste

m/uploads/attachment_data/file/61152/Govern

ment-Construction-Strategy_0.pdf Accessed

7th June 2013

[28] BIM Task Group (2013b) About Us [Online]

Available at:

http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/about/ Accessed

7th

June 2013

[29] Bernstein, P. G. (2012) BuildingSmart Qatar

BIM Summit, October 2012

[30] NBS (2013) National BIM Report 2013

[31] AGC (2009) Integrated Project Delivery for

Public and Private Owners. NASF, COAA,

APPA, AGC, AIA White paper on IPD, AGC

Publication 40 [Online]

http://www.agc.org/galleries/projectd/IPD%20f

or%20Public%20and%20Private%200wners.pd

f Accessed on 3rd

June 2013

[32] Matthews, O., and Howell, G. (2005)

“Integrated Project Delivery: ConsensusDocs,

presented at The 48th

Annual Meeting of

Invited Attorneys, Victor O. Schinnerer and

Company, Inc.

[33] Hellmund, A., Den Wymelenberg, K. and

Baker, K. (2008) “Facing the Challenges of

Integrated Design and project Delivery

[34] Becerik-Gerber, B., and Kensak, K. (2010).

Building Information Modeling in Architecture,

Engineering, and Construction: Emerging

Research Directions and Trends. Journal of

Professional Issues in Engineering Education

and Practice, 136(3), pp. 139-147.

[35] Sive, T. (2009) ‘Integrated Project Delivery:

Reality and Promise, A Strategist’s Guide to

Understanding and Marketing IPD’, Society for

Marketing Professional Services Foundation

White Paper on IPD, SMPS Publication 21

[36] Ghassemi, R. and Becerik-Gerber, B. (2011).

Transitioning to Integrated Project Delivery:

Potential Barriers and Lessons Learned. Lean

Construction Journal, 2011, 32-52.

[Online]http://www.leanconstructionjournal.org

Accessed on 11th

May 2013.

[37] American Institute of Architects and AIA

California Council (2007). Integrated Project

Delivery: A Guide.[Online]

http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS077630

Accessed on 4th June

[38] Rooke, J., Seymour, D., Fellow, R. (2004).

Planning for Claims, an Ethnography of

Industry Culture. Construction Management

and Economics, 22, 655-662.

[39] RIBA (2012) BIM Overlay to the RIBA Outline

Plan of Work

[40] Smith, R.E., Mossman, A. and Emmitt, S.

(2011). Editorial: Lean and Integrated Project

Delivery Special Issue, Lean Construction

Journal, 01-16. Retrieved from

http://www.leanconstruction.org/media/docs/lcj

/2011/LCJ_11_sp1.pdf on May 14, 2013

[41] Build Qatar Live (2013) Awards [Online]

Available at:

http://www.buildqatarlive.com/index.php/a

wards Accessed on 28th July

[42] Macmillan, S., Steele, J., Kirby, P., Spence, R.

& Austin, S. (2002) Mapping the design

process during the conceptual phase of building


th 2013

projects. Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management (9) 3, pp. 174-180

A Theoretical Comparison of Traditional and Integrated Project Delivery Design Processes on...

Documents

Transcript of A Theoretical Comparison of Traditional and Integrated Project Delivery Design Processes on...