Benchmark Performance Metrics for Integrated Project Delivery

Hanna, Awad S.

doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001151

Cited by 91 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the AEC industry has not fully exploited the potential value of integrated project delivery system. For example, although 84% of AIA members learn about the concept of IPD, less than 40% have a deeper understanding of it, and only 13% have executed it [25]. e efficiency and effectiveness of project performance not only depend on the quantity, but also the quality, of knowledgesharing interactions between team members.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explore Knowledge‐Sharing Strategy and Evolutionary Mechanism for Integrated Project Team Based on Evolutionary Game Model

Zhou

Yuan

et al. 2019

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) has become increasingly popular in the architecture, engineering, and construction industries. However, the current practice status by the construction industry fails to deliver the desired results. In that backdrop, how to promote cooperation within and improve the overall performance of integrated project team has received wide attention. Herein, knowledge-sharing plays a critical role in cooperation and overall performance. However, to the best of our knowledge, the research on knowledge-sharing strategy interaction and evolutionary mechanism is rare. To make up for the deficiency of the studies existing, a novel model is proposed by taking advantage of evolutionary game theory, to capture the interaction behavior of knowledge-sharing and explore its evolutionary mechanism. Six parameters of knowledge stock, knowledge-sharing degree, heterogeneous knowledge proportion, synergy effect, knowledge absorption coefficient, and knowledge-sharing cost efficient that are critical to knowledge-sharing are extracted and defined. The payoff matrix is constructed by analyzing the benefits and costs of knowledge-sharing. Then, a replicator dynamic system is established based on payoff matrix, to determine the evolutionary tendency of knowledge-sharing behavior. Finally, numerical simulations are conducted to explore the influences of all parameters on the knowledge-sharing strategy. The findings in this research reveal that strategy interaction behavior is significantly influenced by proportion of strategy of choosing to share knowledge in both game players. The authors also find that strategy interaction behavior has a strong negative correlation with knowledge-sharing cost efficient, but has a positive correlation with knowledge stock, heterogeneous knowledge proportion, degree of knowledge-sharing, knowledge absorption coefficient, and synergetic effect coefficient. This research can provide the evolutionary mechanism and broaden our understanding of relationship between project performance and knowledge-sharing and can offer valuable guidance on improving cooperation and performance of project teams.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explore Knowledge‐Sharing Strategy and Evolutionary Mechanism for Integrated Project Team Based on Evolutionary Game Model

Zhou

Yuan

et al. 2019

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Integrated project delivery (IPD) is defined as a new emerging project delivery system that integrates people, system, business structure and practices into a process that makes full use of the knowledge and insight possessed by key stakeholders within integrated project team, so as to optimize project performance, increase values to the owner, improve efficiency and effectiveness throughout the lifecycle of projects, and finally achieve project success [3]. All participants of the integrated project team, including the owner, designer, contractor and subcontractors, are connected by the multi-party relationship contract, taking BIM as collaboration platform to transmit architecture, structure, mechanical, electrical and plumbing information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Moral Hazard Evolutionary Mechanism for BIM Implementation in an Integrated Project Team

Zhou

Yuan

et al. 2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated project delivery (IPD) is a new emerging delivery system, contributes to increase value to the owner, reduces waste and maximizes efficiency in the life cycle of projects. However, IPD system has not yet shifted from pilot-alike or particular-purposed cases to large-scale applications.The huge advantages of building information modeling (BIM) are far from being exploited, which directly leads to the delivered outcomes below expectations, thereby causing obstacles to widespread application of IPD system. The reasons impeding the successful application of BIM has been a hot topic. Previous studies suggested that moral hazard behavior is a critical inducer leading to the undesirable outcomes. However, very few studies have studied the evolution mechanism of moral hazard behavior for BIM application. To fill this knowledge gap, this study proposed a novel model, aiming to capture dynamically the interactive behavior of BIM-based strategy selections using evolutionary game theory. Five parameters of monitoring cost, proprietary cost, incentive payment, punishment and speculative benefit are extracted and defined in the proposed model. Numerical simulations are conducted with MATLAB 2016a. The simulation results showed that when incentive payment is higher than the sum of speculative benefit and proprietary cost, interactive behavior of both game players will move toward the optimal portfolio strategy. Incentive payment and punishment have negative correlations with the probability of moral hazard behavior for BIM application. Parameters of speculative benefit and proprietary cost affect positively implementation probability of moral hazard behavior of employing BIM. This study can provide theoretical and managerial implications for integrated project managers and related government department to improve implementation of BIM and IPD system, and also contribute to its sustainable development.

show abstract

“…Using this survey, substantial data was collected from 109 projects. This number of projects provides a considerable improvement, in terms of sample size, relative to related studies that collected data from 32 projects (Hanna 2016), 35 projects (El Asmar et al 2013, and 49 projects (Cho et al 2010). Also, the representativeness of the collected dataset was validated by making sure that its statistical distribution was consistent with cited literature (Ibrahim 2016).…”

Section: Data Collection and Documentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the introduction of IPD as a new PDS, many case studies were conducted to assess its performance. Almost all of these case studies showed that IPD projects finished on time, under budget, and with positive relations within the project team (Hanna 2016). By statistically analyzing 35 projects, it was shown that IPD outperformed non-IPD in 12 metrics spanning six performance areas: quality, communication, change management, business, recycling, and schedule (El Asmar et al 2013).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Project Performance Between Different Project Delivery Systems

Ibrahim¹,

Hanna²

2019

Proc. 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Project Delivery System (PDS) defines the relationship and timing of involvement between different contracting parties. The main PDSs referred to in cited literature are: Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Construction Management at Risk (CMR), Design-Build (DB), and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). By applying statistical tests such as Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) F-test and Kruskal-Wallis H-test to a dataset of 109 projects, this paper compares the performance of the four PDSs. As a result, statistically significant performance differences among the examined PDSs were identified in five performance areas: cost, schedule, quality, communication, and change management. Furthermore, performing pairwise comparisons using post-hoc statistical tests to each pair of PDSs shows that DBB performs markedly worse than the other examined PDSs, especially IPD. The findings presented in this paper should encourage industry professionals to move away from the DBB model, and towards IPD and other synergic PDSs.

show abstract

Benchmark Performance Metrics for Integrated Project Delivery

Cited by 91 publications

References 7 publications

Explore Knowledge‐Sharing Strategy and Evolutionary Mechanism for Integrated Project Team Based on Evolutionary Game Model

Explore Knowledge‐Sharing Strategy and Evolutionary Mechanism for Integrated Project Team Based on Evolutionary Game Model

Exploring the Moral Hazard Evolutionary Mechanism for BIM Implementation in an Integrated Project Team

Comparative Analysis of Project Performance Between Different Project Delivery Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About