Maximizing Success on Integrated Projects
Everyone wants their project to succeed. Intuitively, having a collaborative and integrated team should make the process easier and smoother. However, as hard as we may try there can be impediments to successfully building the type of high performance integrated team that can deliver a project on time, on budget and with quality and scope expectations satisfied.
The architecture, engineering and construction industry (AEC) is often criticized for its fragmented approach to project delivery. Traditional procurement and contracting methods tend to isolate designers from contractors, limiting opportunities for collaboration. Viewed as the logical solution to fragmentation, team integration is the process of bringing design and construction disciplines back together. Team integration has attracted the attention of building owners made weary by the adversarial relationships and poor performance of traditional design bid build project delivery. Owners influence the degree of team integration by their choice of project delivery strategy. However, not all owner, nor all architects, engineers, and constructors can function equally in an integrated environment, and often poor or lack of thoughtful procurement strategies result in projects and teams underperforming.
In the late 90’s a seminar research report by Victor Sanvido and Mark Konchar, in collaboration with Penn State University and the Construction Industry Institute (CII) released a report that indicated integrated delivery strategies such as design-build outperformed, CM at Risk and hard bid in terms of quality, cost and schedule. (see footnote below) Owners turned to alternate delivery strategies or hybrids to achieve higher performance and reduce litigation. Since this seminal research, much has changed. In the last decade we’ve seen the emergence of IPD - Integrated multi-party Project Delivery contracts, that strive to achieve that higher level of team integration. We’ve also seen collaborative technologies such as Building Information Modeling, and it’s innate need to maximize integration become the standard of care. Project delivery strategies can enhance the use of these technologies or they can kill them.
The Owners Guide to Maximizing Success on Integrated Projects - Buildings and their delivery have become more complex. Codes and standards are more stringent, building technologies such as modularization, prefabrication and design to fabrication often require complex strategies to effectively execute the work. With the use of modeling tools and parametric design our designs are becoming more complex and harder to build. Looking at the industry today, and the dynamic changes in the last two decades, The Charles Pankow Foundation, a private foundation dedicated to research in design and construction, asked the question – How does the level of team integration and group cohesion impact project delivery, and what are the factors that can positively influence team performance? The research was performed at the University of Colorado and Penn State was again funded by the CII. The results are a Guide to assist owners in selecting the right project delivery strategy for their organization, their experience and the ability of the marketplace to provide integrated project delivery.
This research presents a structural modeling approach to studying the role of team integration in construction project performance. The focus of this research is the project organization, a temporary team of design and construction disciplines that forms for the duration of the project. Project organizations often consist of team members who have never worked together before and will disperse at the completion of the contract scope. Recognizing the importance of team development in organizations, this research also considers the role of group cohesiveness in delivering a successful project. A sample data set of 204 building project was used to compare cost, schedule and quality performance under different project organizations. To characterize the types of project organizations seen in industry, a latent class analysis was performed to group projects by their delivery strategy. Path analysis revealed complex relationships between the delivery strategy, team integration, group cohesiveness and project performance.
Integrated teams involved all tiers of the project organization, from designers to specialty contractor trades, in high-quality interactions. These interactions were collaborative in nature and included design charrettes, goal setting and multidisciplinary BIM uses. The owner’s project delivery strategy had a significant impact on team integration. Strategies that involved construction managers and specialty contractor trades before schematic design achieved higher levels of integration and were more equipped to control project schedule growth. Cohesive teams exhibited higher chemistry, goal commitment and timeliness of communication. Project delivery strategies that included cost transparency with open book contracts generally resulted in a more cohesive teams and a lower average project cost growth. Additionally, the owner’s perception of turnover experience and building system quality was consistently rated higher for cohesive teams.
Understanding these relationships will make building owners more aware of how easily project delivery decisions influence the development of their project teams. Based on their specific goals, owners may select a project delivery strategy that creates the appropriate team environment for the project. The findings of this research are poised to expand methods for studying and implementing project organizations. Architects are uniquely positions as confidants of Owners and can advise Owners to use the guide to consider the most appropriate integration strategy to procure their projects. Knowledge of the Guide and a good, thorough education on integrated project best practices, including procurement strategies, contracts and execution will equip the architect with the knowledge to provide this important information. In a few words, the key take-away’s from the research:
- Owners influence the level of team integration through their project delivery strategies. The best path to success is through building a TEAM.
- Qualification based selection of the team
- Early integration of key specialty trades
- Open transparent contracts
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Greg Gidez, AIA is the Corporate Director for Design Services for Hensel Phelps, where is oversees preconstruction and procurement activities, design build projects, and oversees the Virtual Design and Construction department. Mr. Gidez is national speaker on integrated design and construction, and is the 2011 Chair of the Design Build Institute of America Board of Directors, and the 2015 Chair of the AIA Project Delivery Knowledge Community, representing alternate project delivery strategies and best practices for architects. He has served for 5 years on the Charles Pankow Foundation Industry Advisory Panel, promoting research in advanced design and construction processes.
Penn State CII Study – Project Delivery
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi3_676mpTPAhWC7yYKHXgpDOIQFgg6MAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.engr.psu.edu%2Fae%2Fcic%2Fpublications%2FTechReports%2FTR_038_Konchar_Comparison_of_US_Proj_Del_Systems.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF1ZsBxTzxZUph3Ad0ZdOZtgIJWwg
Maximizing Success In Integrated Projects – The Owners Guide:
http://bim.psu.edu/delivery