Integrated Project Delivery – Complicated Collaboration or Improbable Panacea
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) has been touted with both raves and reservation as a construction project delivery method. IPD boasts better buildings thanks to multiparty contracting, but detractors warn that IPD remains as complicated as it is collaborative.
IPD requires the sharing of project risks among the multiparty contract entities and allows subsequent profit sharing. Removing the associated liability encourages the parties to focus on producing an economical design and executing the construction activity efficiently and effectively. The IPD project is organized like a business with early involvement of key players with shared team decision-making and control. Orientation [onboarding] is critical because IPD’s approach, process and vocabulary are different from the normal project delivery methods. In IPD, the facility owner pays all contract signatories’ direct costs and overhead, theoretically striped of profit. The team of designers and contractors contribute to a profit pool, based on a target price. The risk of losing money is minimal with the opportunity to share in the net budget savings (i.e., profit). Moreover, IPD offers opportunities for repeat business with trusted partners.
However, skeptics remain. The typical constructor, pragmatic by nature, has honed their business skills from the school of hard knocks. IPD seems complicated to those not attuned to creative problem solving. IPD participants must be technically knowledgeable with business savvy, be good at ‘playing well’ with others, and exhibit good communication skills; not the typical construction manager’s tool-kit.
The proposed paper will compare and contrast these positive and negative aspects of IPD.
PMI Talent Triangle Skill: Strategic and Business Management