Integrated project delivery (IPD) is an emerging construction project delivery system that collaboratively involves key participants very early in the project timeline, often before the design is started. It is distinguished by a multiparty contractual agreement that typically allows risks and rewards to be shared among project stakeholders. Because IPD is becoming increasingly popular, various organizations are expressing interest in its benefits to the architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) industry. However, no research studies have shown statistically significant performance differences between IPD and more established delivery systems. This study fills that missing gap by evaluating the performance of IPD projects compared to projects delivered using the more traditional design-bid-build, design-build, and construction management at-risk systems, and showing statistically significant improvements for IPD. Relevant literature was analyzed, and a data collection instrument was developed and utilized in detailed interviews to gather quantitative performance data from 35 recently completed projects. Univariate data analyses, such as t-tests and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests, were performed to evaluate IPD performance. The results indicate that IPD achieves statistically significant improvements in 14 metrics across six performance areas: quality, schedule, project changes, communication among stakeholders, environmental, and financial performance. The major contribution of this paper is demonstrating that IPD provides higher quality facilities faster and at no significant cost premium. These results would be extremely valuable in the hands of decision makers to enable them to choose the appropriate delivery system for their projects.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose This study investigates the extent to which the popular forms of contract adopted in the Middle East (ME) address collaboration. The purpose of this paper is to assess how collaboration features weaved into the construct of integrated project delivery (IPD) may impact projects in the ME. In this context, the study identifies features in IPD and existing delivery methods that may enable or inhibit collaboration and evaluates their impact on project success from the perspective of various contract managers in the ME. Design/methodology/approach The study employs structured face-to-face interviews with 41 construction industry practitioners in top contract management positions in the ME to evaluate the significance of collaboration features in IPD. Data collected from the structured interviews/surveys were analyzed using statistical tools in R and Excel. Findings Results reveal that while experts recognize the collaboration benefits which IPD features may contribute to a project, the current contractual environment of the industry does not optimally encompass these features. The current status of project delivery does not favor IPD implementation nor does it enable its collaborative features. Originality/value This study contributes to the growing international body of knowledge addressing the application of collaborative contracts in construction projects, and it is innovative in evaluating collaboration features within IPD and exiting project deliveries in the ME.

For more than five decades, Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) have been applied by organizations to manage their projects in different industries. However, many organizations still struggle to apply Earned Value Management (EVM) techniques to assess and reliably control their project outcomes. This work investigated the state of practice of EVMS. This paper identifies challenges facing practitioners, critical EVMS subprocesses, and key EVMS environment factors, based on a large survey of 294 expert respondents. Sample respondents had project management experience of greater than 20 years on average, and represented a diverse set of projects and industries (e.g., capital projects, aerospace, defense, energy, and others). The responses from this survey helped craft an agreed-upon set of definitions for EVM, EVMS, EVMS maturity, and EVMS environment that are all provided in this paper. Moreover, out of 10 total EVMS subprocesses, planning and scheduling was ranked as the subprocess with the greatest impact on EVMS, by far. When ranking the top factors that impact the EVMS environment, the following factors rose to the top: organizational culture; efficient EVMS development process; leadership's past EVMS experience; effective and accountable leadership; and quality and level of data available. Moreover, leadership attitude toward EVMS was found to be the most critical EVMS challenge, by a wide margin. Comparing different perspectives, the data showed that project/program owners consider EVM implementation costs to be a major challenge, while contractors and consultants consider adequate calendar time needed for preparing EVMS to be a critical EVMS environment factor. Overall, this paper contributes to the engineering management body of knowledge by identifying the most important subprocesses and factors of a high-performing EVMS applied to a diverse array of complex projects and programs (e.g., aerospace, defense, construction, software, etc.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract