A critical perspective on Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) applied in a Norwegian public hospital project

Abstract

Does the IPD concept deliver as required and expected, and if not, how can that be explained? This paper is a critical realist inspired methodology based on a combination of the inductive and deductive approaches used in case study research. IPD is based on relational contracting between multiple parties, in this case between the Owner, Contractor, MEP subcontractors and a group of Consulting engineers who share control of the project. At the core of the concept is shared risk and opportunities among the parties in the IPD contract. Our theoretical perspectives are based mainly on the Principal-Agent theory (PA), Transaction Cost theory (TC), and its related incentives. This paper reports on a study of the development of an existing public hospital that is constructing first a psychiatry and then a somatic building. The data collection in the paper is mainly in connection with the construction of the psychiatry building in 2018. Our findings show that IPD represents a game-changer in the behaviours and the organizing of AEC (Architect-Engineer-Construction) projects, ex-post IPD-contract. We identify examples of swapping occurring that require deep collaboration, which stems from changes in the commercial incentives. However, different individual incentives coupled with accompanying mindsets and opportunistic behaviour are still part of everyday life and are linked to people's past experiences, which can be understood as contextual conditions. In addition, the decision-making processes were not effective and characterized by revisiting previous decisions.

Continuous Improvement on Detailed Design Phase: A Process Perspective

“…On the other hand, the chosen model is hardly optimal with such great demands in the project for new knowledge and related risk. However, there exist execution models that are more partner-oriented with risk and profit-sharing, see for example Kalsaas et al (2018) that have greater potential in this regard. The more specific factors regarding the complexity of design are listed in Table 2.…”

How relational contract theory influence management strategies and project outcomes: a systematic literature review

“…The deficiencies in TC have required that contracts promote greater cooperation partnerships of better quality and reduce adversarial conflict (Jelodar et al 2016a, Mesa et al 2019. Some parts of the civil construction industry have turned to new delivery models which offer alternative ways of coordinating, cooperating and managing risk (Williamson 1985, Colledge 2005, Harper et al 2016, Jobidon et al 2018; however, practitioners have resisted new methods and often reverted back to old habits (Kumaraswamy et al 2005b, Rahman and Kumaraswamy 2008, Howard et al 2019, Kalsaas et al 2020. Ke et al (2015a) argued that despite this interest, the performance of relational projects had failed to meet expectations.…”

“…Nevertheless, it is not just about deficiencies in cost performance, but also about increasing public requirements aimed at benefits realisation and achieving environmental and long-term sustainability otherwise known as the Triple Bottom Line (Lenferink et al 2013, Walker andLloyd-Walker 2015). As a result of attempts to counteract the problems of transactional contracting, several significant milestone events 2 took place (Strahorn et al 2017, Jobidon et al 2018, which have all promoted integrated processes and collaborative working (Kalsaas et al 2020) and have influenced the rise of RC models (Ke et al 2015b).…”

“…While the collaborative process requires new ways of coordinating and cooperating (Williamson 1985, Colledge 2005, Harper et al 2016, Jobidon et al 2018, empirical evidence shows that practitioners in practice are often locked in using more conventional ways of doing things (Cheung et al 2006); practitioners revert to old habits and traditional working practices (Kumaraswamy et al 2005b, Howard et al 2019, Kalsaas et al 2020.…”