This one day event provided an interesting overview of how project delivery methods have evolved to their current state and how they might evolve into the future
8 attachments
Focus Search
- Scope Delivery – DBB, CMR and DB Delivery, procurement, contracting, behaviors and environment Findings DB was faster than DBB and CMR Cost and schedule growth were highest for DBB Combined contracts were faster than split contracts Cost and quality were driven by procurement and contracting Project Data Characteristics Completed: 2008 - 2013 Public: 127 (62%) Private: 77 (38%) 204 Projects 56 (27%)Educational 41 (20%)Office 32 (16%)Health Care 27 (13%)Lodging 20 (10%)Commercial 11 (5%)Sports & Recreation 11 (5%)Manufacturing 4 (2%) Correctional 2 (1%)Transportation Facility Types Number of Projects 1 32 Facility Sizes (44%) 90 0 - 99,000 ft2 (24%) 49 100,000 - 199,000 ft2 (13%) 26 200,000 - 299,000 ft2 (7%) 15 300,000 - 399,000 ft2 (3%) 6 400,000 - 499,000 ft2 (2%) 3 500,000 - 599,000 ft2 (3%) 7 > 700,000 ft2 600,000 - 699,000 ft2 (4%) 8 Group Cohesion Development into an effective unit Team Integration Bringing together In high-quality interactions Delivery Method Procurement Process Cost Quality Project Performance Schedule Goal: Determine if team processes and behaviors have an impact on project performance Payment Terms Delivery Strategy Plan for structuring design and construction services Framework Group Cohesion Development into an effective unit Team Integration Bringing together In high-quality interactions Team Integration Group Cohesion Integration Team Integratio n Cohesive ness • Participation in • Joint Goal Setting • Cross Disciplinary design charrettes • BIM Execution Planning • Increased sharing of information and analysis through BIM • Increased team interaction through colocation Higher levels of integration led to: • Reduced schedule growth • Enabled more intense schedules • Led to more cohesive teams Team Integration Group Cohesion Integration Team Integration Group Cohesion Group Cohesion • Commitment to shared goals • High levels of team chemistry • Communication is timely and effective Higher group cohesiveness led to: • Reduced cost growth • Higher system quality • Improved turnover experience G ro u p C o h e si o n Team IntegrationTeam Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration 70% of projects delivered late had below average levels of Team Integration Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration 60% of on budget projects had above average levels of Group Cohesion Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team IntegrationTeam Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration DBB Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration CM@R Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration DB Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration IPD Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration DBB CM@R DB IPD Large variance within each delivery method We need to consider more than just delivery method Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n Group Cohesion Development into an effective unit Team Integration Bringing together In high-quality interactions Cost Quality Project Performance Schedule Delivery Strategy Plan for structuring design and construction services Measurements of the project organization that reflect the owner’s delivery strategy Single contract for design and construction Builder was hired at SD or earlier Trades were hired at SD or earlier Builder was prequalified Trades were prequalified Builder was selected based on cost of work Trades were selected based on cost of work Builder had an open book contractDelivery Strategy Plan for structuring design and construction services Delivery Method Payment Terms Procurement Process Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Closed Book Team (n=56) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Primary Contractor 2nd Tier Contractors Primary Contractor (%) 2nd Tier Contractors (%) Open Book Team (n=36) Notes: Timing of involvement measured as stage of overall design completion (%); PRE = Pre-design (0%), CONC = Conceptual design (0-15%), SD = Schematic design (15-30%), DD = Design development (30-60%), CD = Construction documents (60-90%), BID = Bidding (100%). 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Traditional (n=19) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Closed Book CM (n=39) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s N u m b e r o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Open Book CM (n=54) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Closed Book Team (n=56) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Primary Contractor 2nd Tier Contractors Primary Contractor (%) 2nd Tier Contractors (%) Open Book Team (n=36) Notes: Timing of involvement measured as stage of overall design completion (%); PRE = Pre-design (0%), CONC = Conceptual design (0-15%), SD = Schematic design (15-30%), DD = Design development (30-60%), CD = Construction documents (60-90%), BID = Bidding (100%). 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Traditional (n=19) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Closed Book CM (n=39) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s N u m b e r o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Open Book CM (n=54) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Closed Book Team (n=56) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Primary Contractor 2nd Tier Contractors Primary Contractor (%) 2nd Tier Contractors (%) Open Book Team (n=36) Notes: Timing of involvement measured as stage of overall design completion (%); PRE = Pre-design (0%), CONC = Conceptual design (0-15%), SD = Schematic design (15-30%), DD = Design development (30-60%), CD = Construction documents (60-90%), BID = Bidding (100%). 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Traditional (n=19) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID N u m b e r o f C as e s Closed Book CM (n=39) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 PRE CONC SD DD CD BID P e rc e n ta ge o f C as e s N u m b e r o f C as e s Timing of Involvement Open Book CM (n=54) P e rc e n ta g e o f P ro je c ts Phase of Design Class I (n=19) Class III (n=54) Class V (n=36) PRE = Pre-Design CONC = Conceptual Design SD = Schematic Design DD = Design Development CD = Construction Documents BID = Bidding Primary Contractor / CM Trade Contractors Early Involvement of the Builder and/or Trades Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Project Delivery Strategy Timing of Involvement Early Involvement of the Builder and Trades Underlying Themes Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Project Delivery Strategy Open Book Payment Terms Qualification Based Selection G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration I II III IV V Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n G ro u p C o h e si o n Team Integration I II III IV V Team Integration G ro u p C o h e s io n • Reduced cost growth • Improved turnover experience • Higher system quality • Reduced schedule growth • Enabled more intense schedules • Led to more group cohesion The Owner’s Guide Pulling it all together Sponsored by the Charles Pankow Foundation and the Construction Industry Institute Website: http://bim.psu.edu/delivery http://bim.psu.edu/delivery © LEAN CONSTRUCTION INSTITUTE C A P T U R E A N D L E V E R A G E T H E L E A N A D V A N T A G E LCI CONGRESS PRESENTATION STYLE GUIDEWhy Projects Excel?