ArticlePDF Available

Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery in the Commercial Construction Industry: A Conceptual Study


Abstract and Figures

In recent years, new technologies have emerged that promise to deliver efficiency, cost savings, and productivity increases to the commercial construction industry; building information modeling (BIM), and integrated project delivery (IPD) are such technologies. The literature is overwhelmingly positive with respect to the potential of BIM and/or IPD, in addition to Partnering – a less formal predecessor to IPD. This conceptual study is a critical review of the technologies, which identifies key benefits/deficiencies within the literature, synthesizes the information with comparative analysis, and conceptualizes a new framework for understanding the technologies and their interactions – the BIM/IPD Integration Model. A preliminary methodological concept for resolution of the problems uncovered is also put forth. Conclusions indicate that further study is needed to better understand the relationship between BIM and/or IPD adoption and project performance measures (e.g., cost, profit, ROI, schedule, safety, relationships, etc.) utilizing rigorous quantitative methods applied to actual project data.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management
2012, 2(1), 23-36
Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project
Delivery in the Commercial Construction Industry: A
Conceptual Study
Benedict D. Ilozor1 and David J. Kelly2
1Professor, Construction Management Programs, Eastern Michigan University, E-mail:
2Graduate Student, Construction Management Programs, Eastern Michigan University, E-mail:
(corresponding author).
Engineering and Project Management
Received August 7, 2011; received revisions October 3, 2011; October 20, 2011; October 22, 2011; accepted October 23, 2011
Available online December 18, 2011
Abstract: In recent years, new technologies have emerged that promise to deliver efficiency, cost savings, and
productivity increases to the commercial construction industry; building information modeling (BIM), and integrated
project delivery (IPD) are such technologies. The literature is overwhelmingly positive with respect to the potential of
BIM and/or IPD, in addition to Partnering – a less formal predecessor to IPD. This conceptual study is a critical review of
the technologies, which identifies key benefits/deficiencies within the literature, synthesizes the information with
comparative analysis, and conceptualizes a new framework for understanding the technologies and their interactions – the
BIM/IPD Integration Model. A preliminary methodological concept for resolution of the problems uncovered is also put
forth. Conclusions indicate that further study is needed to better understand the relationship between BIM and/or IPD
adoption and project performance measures (e.g., cost, profit, ROI, schedule, safety, relationships, etc.) utilizing rigorous
quantitative methods applied to actual project data.
Keywords: Building information modeling, integrated project delivery, partnering, commercial construction.
1. Introduction
Productivity in the construction industry, one of the
largest industries in the United States (U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010), has
been declining since 1964 (Teicholz, 2004). The industry
is often characterized as inefficient, wasteful, litigious,
combative, unproductive and in need of improvement both
in the U.S. (Gallaher, 2004) and abroad (Rooke et al.,
2004). For example, evidence suggests that the mean
speed of building construction has been declining since
the erection of the Empire State Building (ESB) in 1931
(Sacks and Partouche, 2011). At just over two million
square feet, the ESB was constructed in approximately 13
months (Sacks and Partouche, 2011) – an achievement
that some constructors view as remarkable and simply
unachievable in today’s industry milieu. Many factors are
potentially responsible for the apparent decline in
productivity; e.g., legal setting, labor representation,
government regulation, building and system complexity,
contract conventions, delivery methods, technological
interoperability, etc. (Gallaher, 2004; Teicholz, 2004). In
recent years, two new technologies have emerged that
promise to deliver efficiency, cost savings, and
productivity increases to the industry: building
information modeling (BIM), and integrated project
delivery (IPD).
The objective of this paper is to conceptualize a new
framework for understanding BIM and IPD (including
Partnering), their interactions, and the resulting impact on
design and construction process outcomes. The paper
begins with a critical review of the literature on BIM and
IPD. Key benefits and deficiencies within the literature are
identified and discussed. This information is then
synthesized through comparative analysis. Potential
problem statements are identified which result from the
analysis and a conceptual framework is put forth to further
understand the technologies. The paper is concluded with
the identification of future research approaches, involving
rigorous quantitative methods, to measure and evaluate
the effect of the technologies on the industry.
2. Building Information Modeling
Building information modeling (BIM) is a relatively new
technology in the commercial construction industry.
Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston (2008) defined BIM
as an electronic replica of a project that, “contains precise
geometry and relevant data needed to support the
construction, fabrication, and procurement activities” (pp.
1). Furthermore, Dossick and Neff (2010) noted that
“BIM makes explicit the highly interdependent nature of
structure, architectural layout, and the mechanical,
electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems by technologically
coupling project participants together” (pp. 459). More
plainly, BIM is a term used to describe a myriad of
computer software applications that can be utilized by
design and construction professionals alike to plan, layout,
estimate, detail and fabricate various components of a
Much has been written about the apparent benefits of
BIM. Eastman et al. (2008) organized the benefits of BIM
utilization into four categories: pre-construction benefits
(concept and feasibility), design benefits (visualization,
auto correction of changes, 2-D plan generation, etc.),
construction and fabrication benefits (synchronized
planning, clash detection, automated fabrication, quantity
survey and estimating, etc.), and post-construction
benefits (management and building operations).
Automatic rule checking is an emergent topic area of
BIM research (Eastman et al., 2009). In this method, the
BIM model is an input to the rule checking program that
automatically reviews the geometry, spatial relationships,
clearances, and other dimensional and object-oriented
criteria and then subsequently determines whether the
proposed design complies with predefined user-generated
rules. Eastman et al. (2009) noted that the potential
applications of this technology are vast with automated
rule checking candidates including: code compliance
agencies; organizations and clients with specific building
types requiring conformance to internal standards;
assessment of universal concerns such as safety, structural
integrity, energy consumption; and other project specific
criteria established by the project team members (p. 1012).
In the future, automatic rule checking could be coupled
with an integrated project delivery. Elsewhere within the
literature (AIA, 2007; National Association of State
Facilities Administrators (NASFA) et al., 2010), this
nexus of technology and process is identified as having
the potential to facilitate exciting new applications for
BIM, such as enhanced collaboration in accurately
estimating first cost and life-cycle costs from preliminary
schematic BIM models, and the use of rule-checking
algorithms to automatically determine compliance of a
subject design with the owner’s budget, schedule, and
life-cycle goals.
The fragmented and sometimes adversarial nature of
the commercial construction industry has been observed
to be an impediment to full realization of the benefits of
BIM. Dossick and Neff (2010) conducted an ethnographic
study and concluded that the competing obligations of
echanical and electrical subcontractors across the
landscape of scope (contractual boundaries), project
(leadership), and company (resources and financial risk)
serve to limit the extent of significant collaboration on
projects. Furthermore, they assert that without strong
leadership, the collaboration process can be reduced to
simple information exchange rather than meaningful
problem solving and optimization (p. 466). Proponents
(AIA, 2007; NASFA et al., 2010) claim that IPD, when
properly implemented, will remove some (if not all) of the
impediments observed by Dossick and Neff (2010). The
generalizability, reliability, and validity of these findings
are somewhat suspect due to the inherent limitations of
ethnography in relation to sample size.
Evidence of constructive interactions between Lean
and BIM has been identified. Sacks, Koskela, Dave and
Owen (2010) developed a “conceptual framework for
analyzing the interaction of two transformative
technologies: BIM and Lean” (p. 979). Specifically, an
interaction matrix of Lean principles and BIM
functionalities was developed that identified 56
interactions, all but four of which are purported to be
constructive interactions suggesting that, “any company or
project on a lean journey should seriously consider using
BIM for enhancing the Lean outcomes. Conversely, [it is
recommended that] any company or project implementing
BIM should ensure that their adoption/change process is
contributing to the fullest extent possible to making their
processes leaner” (p. 979). This is a parallel finding to the
focus of this paper, i.e., evaluating the evidence for
potential synergies, and interactions between BIM and
Becerik-Gerber and Kensek (2010) surveyed a wide
range of industry participants, including architects,
consultants, contractors, technology providers, engineers,
developers and owners to identify current research
interests within the area of BIM. Their findings showed
that 89% of industry respondents indicated an interest in
new research on Building Information Technology and
Management, while 87% indicated an interest in IPD.
Future research ideas that were marked as critical included,
“the concept of one virtual database versus linked
information; coordination with sustainable design;
rethinking of IPD as a method to promote BIM;
educational ramifications, and management issues
throughout the life cycle of the project” (p. 142). The
concept of “rethinking of IPD as a method to promote
BIM” is somewhat radical and contrary to the industry’s
understanding of the relationship between the two
technologies as articulated by the AIA (2007), which
states, “BIM provides a platform for collaboration
throughout the project’s design” (p. 10). Furthermore they
declare, “BIM is a tool, not a project delivery method, but
IPD process methods work hand-in-hand with BIM and
leverage the tool’s capabilities” (p. 10). The AIA’s
commentary does not regard IPD as a vehicle of BIM
implementation, as Becerik-Gerber and Kensek’s (2010)
study suggests some industry participants may.
The use of modular construction techniques may
increase as BIM becomes more prevalent within the
industry (Lu and Korman, 2010). The recognized
advantages of modular construction include schedule
improvement, enhanced quality, reduced environmental
impact, on-site workforce reduction, etc. (p. 1137).
Despite its apparent benefits, modular construction is not
widely employed in commercial construction where its
use is generally limited to correctional facilities and other
types of very repetitive structures. One possible
explanation for the limited use of modular techniques in
commercial construction is the popularity of the
traditional design-bid-build delivery model. Under this
model, the modular building subcontractor would
generally not be able to begin design or fabrication of
their work until after completion of the construction
documents, general contract bidding, and subcontract
negotiation, all of which take time to complete and create
potential lead-time conflicts with modular components,
depending on the particulars of the project. These
constraints are potentially eliminated in a BIM enabled
IPD environment, where key subcontractors are involved
in the process earlier (AIA, 2007; NASFA et al., 2010),
creating more business opportunities for modular building
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
24 Benedict D. Ilozor and David J. Kelly
In order to take advantage of the potential of BIM,
project management must evolve by redefining the
perception of what project management is, as well as the
procedures and devices utilized in project delivery (Froese,
2010). Fig. 1 features a schematic Froese’s (2010)
conceptual framework, which envisions a highly complex,
virtual, unified, and interdependent project management
approach. This framework, which depicts the interplay of
processes, time, and products during a project,
materialized from three recent developments: the
increasing use of complex information systems that
require specialized knowledge; the under-emphasis of
participant interdependence by current management
systems; and the increasingly common use of BIM and
associated technologies as a tool in project delivery (p.
531). BIM is viewed as an implement of project
integration, a similar stance as the one adopted by the AIA
In response to the increase in BIM-related research,
Succar (2009) developed a research framework to:
systematize knowledge; advance awareness and
implementation; recast BIM as an integrated solution; and
connect the gap that exists between the understandings of
BIM by those in academia and their counterparts in active
practice (p. 358). Refer to Fig. 2 for a depiction of
Succar’s (2009) framework, which represents the
interplay of BIM fields (players and deliverables), stages
(implementation maturity) and lenses (“knowledge
views”). Succar (2009) argues that IPD should be the
desired endpoint of all BIM implementations, concurring
with the AIA (2007) and Froese’s (2010) analysis, stating
that, “…the long term vision of BIM [is that of] an
amalgamation of domain technologies, processes and
policies” (p. 365).
Fig.1. Schematic of the dimensions of a unified approach to project management. Reprinted from “The impact of emerging
information technology on project management for construction” by T.M. Froese, 2010, Automation in Construction,
19(5), 531-538. Copyright 2009 Elsevier B.V. Reprinted with permission.
Fig.2. BIM framework: fields, stages and lenses – tri-axial model. Reprinted from “Building information modeling
framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders” by B. Succar, 2009, Automation in Construction,
18(3), 357-375. Copyright 2008 Elsevier B.V. Reprinted with permission.
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery in the Commercial Construction Industry 25
Fig.3. Stages of project development according to the 5D concept.
Reprinted, from “The use of a virtual building design and construction model for developing an effective project concept
in 5D environment” by V. Popov et al. (2010), Automation in Construction, 19(3), 357-367. Copyright 2009 Elsevier B.V.
Reprinted with permission.
The 5D (3D + time + cost) project environment model
developed by Popov, Juocevicius, Migilinskas,
Ustinovichius and Mikalauskas (2010), categorizes the
BIM-enabled project into three stages: design and
calculation of resources, organization and simulation of
construction works, and project facilities management.
This BIM-enabled model is proposed to replace the
traditional design-bid-build model that is ubiquitous
throughout the industry. Refer to Fig. 3 for a
representation of the model that, for all intents and
purposes, is essentially what the AIA (2007) defined as
the goal of integrated project delivery. The model relies
heavily on BIM to enable collaboration in cost estimating,
automatic document review (similar in nature to that
proposed by Eastman et al. (2008)), systems analysis,
value engineering, scheduling, resource allocation, site
logistics, and facilities management/maintenance, among
many others (p. 359). Again, BIM is envisioned as a tool
for project integration.
Conversion of 2D architectural documents into
working 3D models through the use of automatic
graphical recognition software has been studied and
advanced. Lu, Yang, Yang and Cai (2007) identified three
main challenges with this process: architectural
information is contained in a series of related sheets;
multi-dimensional properties may be expressed in tables
or charts within the documents (e.g., a footing or column
schedule); and the use of abbreviations, keynotes and
symbols complicates the recognition process (p. 31).
Despite the challenges, Lu et al. (2007) developed
algorithms that correctly identified and modeled simple
architectural elements, such as doors, windows, and walls
correctly with an 80% success rate. The research does not
indicate whether or not the algorithms embed object-
oriented data within the created model, i.e., the program
may be able to scan and model a door, but does the 3D
model created have the embedded characteristics of a door
(e.g., hollow metal vs wood, glass lite dimensions, etc.)
within the modeled object? While the widespread
usefulness of this technology may be limited with respect
to new construction, one application is in the conversion
of outdated 2D record drawings into working 3D models
that can be used as existing conditions “backgrounds” for
renovation, addition, or facility management purposes.
Development of a single integrated model for projects
that is capable of serving the needs of both architectural
level modeler and fabrication level detailer has been
identified as problematic (Eastman, 2006; Tiecholz, 2004).
Current modeling technology has evolved to suit the
highly specialized needs of the specific users; i.e.,
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
26 Benedict D. Ilozor and David J. Kelly
designers, engineers, architects, fabricators, contractors,
estimators, etc., rather than towards an integrated one-
consolidated-model-per-project approach put forth by
Becerik-Gerber and Kensik (2010). Supporters claim that
the close coordination and interdependence required of
IPD participants will spur them towards this end (AIA,
2007; NASFA et al., 2010). It is unlikely this will evolve
quickly, given the current level of decentralization and
specialization required of industry participants.
Astonishing claims of productivity increase and cost
avoidance have been made within the literature. Azhar,
Hein, and Sketo (2008) prepared a case study of the
construction of the Hilton Aquarium in Atlanta, Georgia.
Their study concluded that $600,000 was saved in
mechanical and electrical conflict avoidance on the project.
However, this seemingly impressive result was based on
estimates of savings for conflicts resolved during the
overhead coordination process, not actual data.
Additionally, the information presented indicates that the
authors assumed that 75% of the conflict would have been
resolved with conventional 2-D coordination processes,
meaning that only $200,000 worth of estimated conflicts
were averted by the use of BIM. Lastly, the limitations on
generalizability of case study method findings limit the
usefulness of this work. Giel, Issa, and Olbina (2010)
reported BIM ROI figures ranging from 16% to 1654%.
However, Post (2009) reported results of a survey
indicating an average of 70% ROI for contractors, with
engineer and architect ROI figures being much lower.
These conflicting findings highlight the need for a more
rigorous quantitative analysis of the productivity increases,
cost avoidance and ROI actually experienced by firms
utilizing BIM technology.
BIM may not be a panacea to many industry problems,
as the vast majority of the literature notes. Evidence
suggests that it may create its own problems. Post (2011)
reported on the case of a large legal settlement between
insurers, designers, and contractors involving BIM on a
recently completed life-sciences building. The engineers
utilized BIM to design a very intricate and close-fitting
overhead MEP system. However, they neglected to inform
the contractor of various installation constraints. As a
result, additional work was required to remedy the
situation in the field. Those involved in the matter
attributed the situation to poor communication and
contractor naïveté with BIM, reinforcing the importance
of teamwork, communication and technical expertise
when utilizing the technology.
2.1. Key Benefits of the Literature
The literature on BIM has covered many of the important
facets of the technology, including but not limited to:
technical issues, industry applications, project
management techniques, productivity and cost, adoption
strategies, theoretical frameworks explaining its impact on
and place within the industry, etc. The literature, on
balance, is overwhelmingly positive regarding the future
of BIM and the many benefits it has already brought to the
business. Refer to Table 1 for a visual representation of
the major themes presented within the literature.
Table 1. Interaction Table - BIM literature
Topic, theme, or idea furthered
Benefits of BIM
Automatic rule checking
Potential synergies with
Impediments to BIM use
BIM and Lean
Effect on Project
Framework(s) propose
2D document conversion
Effect on modular
Model approach
Effect on
Legal implications
Azhar et al. (2008) X X
Becerik-Gerber and Kensek (2009) X X X
Dossick and Neff (2010) X X X
Eastman (2006) X X X X
Eastman et al. (2008) X X X
Eastman et al. (2009) X X X
Froese (2010) X X X X X
Lu et al. (2007) X X X
Giel et al. (2010) X X
Lu and Korman (2010) X X X
Popov et al. (2010) X X X
Post (2011) X
Sacks et al. (2010) X X
Note: Visual representation of the major themes presented within the literature review. All but one paper deals with the
benefits of BIM, typically in the introductory pages.
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery in the Commercial Construction Industry 27
2.2. Key Deficiencies within the Literature
There is a lack of thorough quantitative analysis and
rigorous independent verification of the many qualitative
assertions made within the literature with respect to BIM’s
potential positive impact on productivity, cost, schedule,
quality, etc. While two papers did focus primarily on
productivity, ROI, and cost benefits (Azhar et al., 2008;
Giel, 2010), there is a gap with respect to meticulous
verification of the purported benefits of BIM adoption.
For example, studies reporting the actual labor hours
expended per square-foot (or other quantifiable metric) by
contractors on comparable projects, both before and after
BIM adoption, were not found.
Safety was not mentioned at length in the literature
sampled. This is startling because of fundamental
importance of this topic to contractors and the potential to
improve safety loss rates with more off-site prefabrication
activities enabled by BIM.
Lastly, the sociological effects of BIM technology on
the industry have not been explored extensively within the
3. Integrated Project Delivery
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a method of
managing large-scale construction and development
projects. It is formal collaboration that occurs throughout
the design, planning, and execution phases of a project.
The goals of IPD are to assist owners, designers and
constructors in reducing waste, cutting costs, and
improving productivity (AIA, 2007).
The American Institute of Architects (AIA, 2007)
defines Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) as, “… a project
delivery approach that integrates people, systems,
business structures and practices into a process that
collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all
participants to optimize project results, increase value to
the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through
all phases of design, fabrication, and construction” (AIA,
Specifically, IPD consists of a multidisciplinary team
of design and construction professionals assembled to
complete a project, who are bound together by alternative
forms of agreement that require team members to share
risk and reward, contribute equally, and employ
alternative processes and technologies, all in support of
achieving reduced cost, time, loss and waste metrics.
The NASFA et al. (2010) jointly define IPD in a
similar fashion as AIA (2007). However, they note that
the emergence of IPD can be viewed as the result of the
union of three recent technical and organizational
developments within the industry: BIM, Lean, and
Sustainability (NASFA et al., 2010). Additionally, they
characterize BIM as, “technology that supports the
delivery of projects in a more collaborative and integrative
way” (p. 9) a somewhat rigid definition that clearly
subordinates BIM to the ends of IPD. As for sustainability,
they cite the work of Molenaar, Sobin, Gransberg,
McCuen, Korkmaz and Horman (2009) supporting early
constructor involvement as significant in achieving the
owners’ sustainability goals.
Project participants are actors reciting scripts that
originate from within the social and contractual structure
of the project environment. As these scripts are enacted,
the structure evolves. Radical change occurs in response
to outside exogenous events (e.g., the introduction of IPD
or other system changes, etc.) (Barley, 1986). Giddens
(1979) notes “…all social actors know a great deal about
what they are doing in processes of interaction; and yet at
the same time there is a great deal which they do not know
about the conditions and consequences of their activities,
but which nonetheless [sic] influences their course” (p.
216). That is, the actors play the part, and unknowingly
change the structure they are operating within. IPD
requires that team members behave differently in order for
the project to succeed. The capacity of participants to
adjust to new work paradigms and behaviors is critical to
project success (AIA, 2007).
The most striking difference between IPD and the
more traditional delivery methods (e.g., Lump Sum
Design-Bid-Build (LS), Design/Build (DB), Construction
Management at-risk (CMC) and Construction
Management Advisor (CMa)) is the use of a single multi-
party agreement where all major parties to the project
execute the same agreement and share in the risk and
potential rewards (Lancaster and Tobin, 2010). Both the
AIA and AGC, have published model IPD agreements to
facilitate IPD adoption; however, the delivery method is
in its infancy and these forms are not yet widely accepted.
In response, several types and forms of integrated contract
agreements have been utilized for IPD projects in the past.
These include the project alliance, single purpose entity,
joint venture, and relational contracts (AIA, 2007). Other
differences from traditional methods include team
formation protocol, process, communications, technology
use, and interplay. IPD is relatively new and not yet
widely accepted within the industry (Kent and Becerik-
Gerber, 2010). These differences are summarized in Table
1. The delivery method chosen will largely determine the
possible risks and exposures to be encountered during
construction (Ogunsanmi et al., 2011).
The centerpiece of an integrated project delivery is the
project team and its members. “Building upon early
contributions of individual expertise, these teams are
guided by principles of trust, transparent processes,
effective collaboration, open information sharing, team
success tied to project success, shared risk and reward,
value-based decision making, and utilization of full
technological capabilities and support” (AIA, 2007, p. 2).
It follows that IPD implementation requires the project
participants to follow new innovative protocols and
interaction scripts resulting from the method and its
embedded compensation, process, risk, teamwork, and
contractual parameters. IPD requires specific behaviors
among the owners, constructors, and design professionals.
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
28 Benedict D. Ilozor and David J. Kelly
Table 2. Comparison between traditional project delivery and IPD
Traditional Project Delivery
Integrated Project Delivery
Fragmented, assembled on “just-as
needed” or “minimum-necessary”
basis, strongly hierarchical,
An integrated team entity composed key project
stakeholders, assembled early in the process,
open, collaborative
Linear, distinct, segregated;
knowledge gathered “just-as-
needed”; information hoarded; silos
of knowledge and expertise
Concurrent and multi-level; early contributions
of knowledge and expertise; information openly
shared; stakeholder trust and respect
Individually managed, transferred to
the greatest extent possible
Collectively managed, appropriately shared
Individually pursued; minimum effort
for maximum return; (usually) first-
cost based
Compensation / Reward
Team success tied to project success; value-
Paper-based, 2-dimensional; analog
Communication / technology
Digitally based, virtual; Building Information
Modeling (3,4 and 5 dimensional)
Encourage unilateral effort; allocate
and transfer risk; no sharing
Encourage, foster, promote and support multi-
lateral open sharing and collaboration; risk
Note. Summary of major differences between traditional project delivery and integrated delivery. Adapted from
“Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide,” by American Institute of Architects, 2007, 1. Copyright 2007 by AIA, AIA CC.
Adapted with permission.
Unlike traditional delivery methods such as design-
bid-build, design-build and construction management, few
industry practitioners have significant first-hand
experience with the IPD methods. Integrated project
delivery is a new and innovative delivery method for
managing projects (Kent and Becerik-Gerber, 2010). In
addition to the predictable technical and contractual
concerns such as risk/reward, computer technology
integration, and process integration, the AIA (2007)
stresses the necessity of proper team formation,
participant behavior, team building, and communications
as critical to IPD success. Given its innovative structure
and stated need for behavioral change, the introduction of
IPD may represent an exogenous event that may alter
actor scripts as elaborated by Barley (1986).
El-adaway (2010) found that industry and academic
professionals placed great emphasis not only on the early
involvement of key suppliers and manufacturers, the use
of incentives, internal team-based dispute resolution, but
also on the bonds developed between project team
members and their conduct. Through his research, he
identified ten guidelines to developing successful
integrated project contracts: development of the proper
project environment with solid decision making protocols;
the use of a single autonomous project manager for all
disciplines; the use of an outside facilitator to assist in
integrated implementation and dispute resolution;
integrated design process; integrated schedule
development; involvement of key subcontractors and
suppliers early in the process; use of open-book
accounting and lump-sum fees, as opposed to % based
fees that may incentivize parties to inflate the cost;
bonuses and penalties for all participating firms; a clear
and unambiguous change provision clause in the event of
scope growth; and a structured internal dispute resolution
process that allows for a settlement of disputes between
parties, without the need for outside counsel or litigation
(p. 250-252). Many of these findings are consistent with
recommendations put forth by the AIA (2007) and the
NASFA et al. (2010).
Kent and Becerik-Gerber (2010) found similar results.
Identified in their study as “trust, respect and good
working relationships...” (p. 824), many of their
respondents felt that IPD could not succeed without the
presence of these interpersonal dynamics as a prerequisite.
Surprisingly, they also found that “…monetary incentives
are not the most effective [method] to foster
collaboration” (p. 824), suggesting that successful IPD
requires a broader cultural change among the participants.
Rooke, Seymour and Fellow (2004) examined several
insidious practices embedded within the UK construction
industry from the vantage point of organizational and
integrated culture. They defined culture per Tylor (1913),
“Culture, or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic
sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge,
belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities
and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (p.2).
The common practices under evaluation in their study
included: exploiting mistakes in the bidding documents,
scheduling work to maximize delay impact, and
proactive/reactive claims. Arguing that these tactics harm
the industry, hinder competitiveness, and decrease
efficiency, they proposed that while a result of economic
realities, the practices have become an integral part of the
culture of the UK construction industry and cannot be
changed by simply removing the economic incentives (or
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery in the Commercial Construction Industry 29
dis-incentives) that spawned their pervasiveness. IPD
aims to avoid all of the above-referenced harmful
practices, by increasing collaboration, and among others,
providing incentives for “good behavior”a practice
ironically found to be ineffective by Kent and Becerik-
Gerber (2010).
Overcoming barriers to IPD implementation has been
a recent focus of research. Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber
(2011) identified four major industry barriers: legal
(appropriate contract structures), financial (shared risk and
reward), cultural (trust and teamwork), and technological
(interoperability between participants). The use of
integrated project personnel, including the early
incorporation of key subcontractors, IPD training for those
new to the system, coupled with trust-building activities,
appeared to help overcome some of the cultural barriers
that existed. Several innovative techniques were observed
to increase teamwork and trust, such as project personnel
on one project all agreeing to meet face-to-face in lieu of
sending emails. Another project team physically relocated
all the key personnel, regardless of their employer, into
the same office suite to enhance communications and
build trust. These findings suggest that IPD requires
behavioral and cultural modifications from traditional
delivery methods.
Several standard forms of agreement have been put
forth by industry associations to facilitate the use of IPD:
ConsensusDocs 300: Tri-Party Collaborative Agreement
(AGC); C191 Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for
Integrated Project Delivery (AIA); and C195 Standard
Form Single Purpose Entity for IPD (AIA). Additionally,
as with conventional delivery methods, edited versions of
the standard agreement mentioned above as well as one-
off customized project-specific forms of agreement are
also being utilized (AIA, 2007; NASFA et al., 2010).
It may be possible to achieve several of the benefits of
IPD while continuing to utilize traditional non-integrated
contract forms. Singleton and Hamzeh (2011) identified
14 IPD techniques that could be implemented on Naval
Facilities Command (NAVFAC) contracts without
violating pertinent provisions of the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR). However, some of their techniques
relied on “encouraging” or “supporting” project
participants to behave in certain ways, and others on
“increasing ownership” of various project elements (e.g.,
design, schedule, etc.) While this approach may sound
promising at first, it is suspect whether “encouragement”
and “support” could actually affect real behavioral change,
in project participants, without modification of the
underlying contractual relationship.
IPD envisions a reconfiguration of the design process,
shifting design decisions to earlier times in the process
and redefining the industry accepted definitions. Pre-
design becomes Conceptualization, Schematic Design
becomes Criteria Design, Design Development becomes
Detailed Design, and Construction Documents become
Implementation Documents (AIA, 2007). The Macleamy
Curve (refer to Fig. 4) visually represents this shift in
timing and altered classification of design phases. The
single most important change with IPD is the forward
shift of work volume to earlier stages of design.
Fig.4. The Macleamy Curve (2004)
Reprinted from The Construction Users Roundtable’s “Collaboration, Integrated Information, and the Project Lifecycle in
Building Design and Construction Operations” (WP-1202, August, 2004). Copyright 2004 CURT. Reprinted with
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
30 Benedict D. Ilozor and David J. Kelly
Smith, Mossman and Emmitt (2011) have identified
three areas for future research with respect to IPD:
Environment; Organization; and Technology. More
specifically, they identify the environmental issues as
those involving the “physics of project delivery and the
social, cultural, behavioral context in which building
practice unfolds” (p. 13); i.e., development of a solid
understanding of the effects of setting and surroundings
on project success. As for Organization, they envision
research that would identify a variety of new methods and
strategies for accomplishing the goals of IPD, essentially a
new “version” of IPD. Additionally, with respect to
Technology, they point directly to needed improvements
required in BIM technology, specifically the need for
greater, “adoption, interoperability, ownership and storage
of models, and documents signing” (p.13). Lastly, they
indicate that research is needed to help achieve enhanced
information transfer in the fabrication phases of the
3.1. Partnering
Many of the behaviors and attitudes that are required for
IPD to succeed on a project are also required in partnering,
a less formal predecessor. The United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) define partnering as, “A voluntary
organized process by which multiple stake-holders having
shared interests perform as a team to achieve mutually
beneficial goals. It is based on establishing these goals
early in the project lifecycle, building trusting
relationships, and engaging in collaborative relationships.
It requires empowering team members to solve problems
at the lowest organizational level possible.” (USACE,
As opposed to IPD which requires an integrated multi-
party agreement, partnering is implemented after the
traditional agreements are signed between contracting
parties. The project principals attend a seminar to learn the
basics of a partnered approach and establish a preliminary
framework for trust and commitment which is intended to
last the duration of the engagement. Non-binding
partnering “pledges” and “charters” are the documented
outcome of the seminar (Pawson and Redenbach, 2006).
While it is commonly accepted that engaging in
partnering does not alter the base contract responsibilities
of the parties, a recent court decision in Canada draws that
conclusion into question. In EBC, Inc. v. New Brunswick
(2005), a design engineer, whom after signing a partnering
agreement on the project, withheld information that would
have assisted the contractor in avoiding substantial
additional costs in the field, was found negligent in part
due to his failure to share information as promised within
the partnering pledge (Pawson and Redenbach, 2006, p. 1-
Wong and Cheung (2004) studied trust in construction
partnering and concluded that contractors and owners
view trust and the attributes that foster it differently.
Through the use of principal component factor analysis
(PCFA) and varimax rotations, they found that when
evaluating the concept of trust, owners are focused on, in
order of importance, the following:
1. Performance – defined as an amalgamation of problem
solving, competence, communication and respect;
2. Permeability – openness, alignment, financial stability,
information flow;
3. System-based trust – willingness to adopt satisfactory
contract terms;
4. Reputation and relational bonding – long-term
relationships, and compatibility. Meanwhile, contractors
were found to be focused on the following, again in order
of importance:
·Performance and permeability – unity, problem solving,
competence, and alignment, openness, and information
·Systems-based trust;
·Relational bonding;
·Partners’ financial stability.
Surprisingly, financial stability is ranked fourth by
contractors and first by owners, suggesting owners may be
more skeptical of the ability of the contractor to complete
the project than contractors are of owners being able to
pay their bills. Not surprisingly, both groups were heavily
focused on competence, ranked first for both groups
indicating both groups want experienced competent
counterparts with whom to conduct business.
Identifying the underlying reasons for successful
partnering engagements has been explored within the
literature. Chen and Chen (2007) surveyed a group of 221
industry participants from construction, design,
government, and owner organizations. Using factor
analysis, varimax rotations and ANOVA techniques, they
ranked and then grouped 19 critical success factors into
four clusters that summarized the survey data. The critical
factors, in order of importance, were: collaborative team
culture; long-term quality perspective; consistent
objectives; and resource sharing. These results are similar
to what has also been stated in the literature for IPD
success, specifically the requirements identified by the
AIA (2007) and NASFA et al. (2010).
The outcomes associated with partnering have also
been documented. Chan, Chan and Ho (2003) surveyed 78
industry professionals about the benefits of partnering on
construction projects. The top five benefits were:
improved relationship amongst project participants;
improved communication among participants; more
responsive to the short-term emergency, changing project
or business needs; reduction in dispute; and better
productivity was achieved (p. 530). Similar to the research
on IPD, this research measures and analyzes the
perceptions and experiences of participants rather than
more objective parameters, such as cost, schedule, safety,
and quality metrics.
3.2. Key Benefits of the Literature
The literature on IPD and partnering has covered many
significant issues including, but not limited to: guidelines
for implementation, contracting forms and structure,
differences between IPD and more conventional delivery
methods, cultural and interpersonal issues; i.e., trust,
teamwork, etc., required for success, best practices and
overcoming barriers, process changes resulting from
implementation, and synergies with BIM. The literature,
on balance, is overwhelmingly positive regarding the
future of IPD and the many benefits it promises to deliver
to business. Refer to Table 3 for a visual representation of
the major themes presented within the literature.
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery in the Commercial Construction Industry 31
Table 3. Interaction Table – IPD (and partnering) literature
Topic, theme, or idea furthered
Benefits of IPD
Benefits of Partnering
Differences vs Traditional Delivery Methods
BIM synergies and integration
Participant behavior/Trust
Contract development best practices
Barriers to IPD implementation
Implementation without 3-party agreement
Critical success factors/outcomes
AIA (2007) X X X X X
Chan et al. (2003) X X
Chen and Chen (2010) X X
El-adaway (2010) X X
Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber (2011) X X X X X
Kent and Becerik-Gerber (2010) X X X
Lancaster and Tobin (2010) X X
NASFA (2010) X X X X X
Singleton and Hamzeh (2011) X X
Smith, Mossman and Emmitt (2011) X X X X
Wong and Cheung (2004) X X
Note: Visual representation of the major themes presented within the literature review. Every paper deals with the
benefits of IPD(or partnering), typically in the introductory pages.
3.3. Key Deficiencies within the Literature
Similar to the literature on BIM, there is a lack of
thorough quantitative analysis and rigorous independent
verification of the many qualitative assertions made
within the literature with respect to IPD’s potential
positive impact on productivity, cost, schedule, quality,
Much of the BIM literature makes reference to
potential synergies and benefits associated with coupling
BIM with IPD. Likewise, every IPD article makes the
point that integrated projects can greatly benefit from BIM
adoption by team members. However, articles were not
found that challenged or attempted to verify this
relationship in any meaningful quantitative manner.
Furthermore, the IPD literature does not mention
partnering – its own industry predecessor whose
application became widespread in the 1990’s. This is
especially surprising, since the behavioral and relational
changes in participant behavior required to implement
either method are similar in nature.
Another deficiency in the literature is an apparent lack
of skepticism. Several of the articles begin with a list of
citations reciting the vast potential that BIM/IPD has to
affect change and solve problems in the industry. Potential
to affect change does not mean that change actually
happens. Astonishingly, none of the articles appears to
take a step back and ask fundamental questions such as:
1.What is the evidence that the technology actually
improves overall project performance? 2.How do we
independently evaluate and test the technology to
determine if the potential benefits are in fact real and
being experienced by practitioners? 3.How do we know if
the potential benefits outweigh the real costs?
Several methodologies also rely on the use of Likert
scale data gathered by questionnaire. Very few studies
gathered project specific performance data, most likely
due to the difficulties associated with acquisition. For
example, refer to Table 4 for a summary of required
research data, which if gathered in adequate quantity to
address sample size concerns, could lead to interesting and
meaningful insights into the actual net effect of BIM/IPD
on cost, productivity, schedule, etc.
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
32 Benedict D. Ilozor and David J. Kelly
Table 4. Required research data
Attributes Project # 1 Project # 2 Project # 3 Project # n
Subcontractor (coded name of company) A B C
CM/GC (coded name of company) D E F
Specialty Trade Electric Plumbing Fire Prot
Architect (coded name of company) G H I
Engineer (coded name of company) J K L
Schedule duration 24 mos 20 mos 10 mos
Building Type Hospital School Office
Year Built 1990 2004 2010
Area (sf) 200,000 150,000 50,000
# of Floors 4 2 3
Delivery method for Prime Contractor (CM, DBB, IPD, etc) CM DBB IPD
Delivery method subcontractor (DBB, IPD, DB, Design Assist, etc) DBB DBB D-A
Final Adjusted Contract Price ($) 6,000,000 1,500,000 150,000
Adjusted Labor Hour Estimate (# of hours) 30,000 7,000 1,000
Final Actual Labor Hours (# of hours) 31,950 6,850 850
Adjusted Material Estimate ($) 2,000,000 700,000 35,000
Final Actual Material Cost ($) 2,200,000 680,000 32,000
Lost Time Accidents (# of) 4 0 1
Note: An example of required data that could be gathered from industry firms and then analyzed in order to evaluate the
impact of emergent technologies in a robust manner. Subcontractor, CM/GC, Architect, and Engineer would be coded
data. Source: Autho
Table 4. BIM, IPD, and Partnering Comparative Analysis
Reported Benefits for: BIM IPD Partnering
Planning and conceptualization X X
Design and preconstruction X X
Procurement X
Fabrication X
Cost X X X
Schedule X X X
Quality X
Team work and project dynamics X X
Building management and operations X
Note: Summarization of the reported benefits of BIM, IPD, and Partnering.
4. BIM/IPD Integration Model
The literature suggests that BIM and/or IPD can
dramatically enhance project performance from
conceptualization through building management, and
ongoing operations. Refer to Table 4 for comparative
summarization of the reported benefits of BIM, IPD, and
Several research problems arising from the
deficiencies identified within the literature are as follows:
1. The effect of BIM and/or IPD adoption on labor
productivity needs to be better understood.
2. The effect of BIM and/or IPD adoption of the
frequency of lost time accidents needs to be better
3. The relationship between BIM and/or IPD adoption and
construction cost needs to be better understood.
4. The effect of BIM and/or IPD adoption on contractor
profits; i.e., return on investment, needs to be better
In response to the benefits reported, the deficiencies
noted, and the research problems stated above, a
framework for understanding the impact of BIM and/or
IPD on the construction process has been conceptualized
the BIM/IPD Integration Model. The above identified
problems have discernable dependent and independent
variables. The dependent (response) variables consist of
project cost/profit, schedule, ROI, safety, productivity and
relationships. The independent (explanatory) variables
that may affect the response variables are the use of BIM
and/or IPD. As the literature suggests, BIM and/or IPD
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery in the Commercial Construction Industry 33
may influence the conduct and outcomes of the design and
construction process. The objective of subsequent studies
will be to determine the effect, if any, of BIM and/or IPD
on the outcomes of the design and construction process.
Fig. 5 is a representation of the BIM/IPD Integration
 
Fig. 5. A representation of the BIM/IPD Integration Model –a framework for understanding the BIM/IPD impact on the
Design and Construction Process.
Potential methodologies will involve gathering data
from projects that utilized BIM and/or IPD as well as
those that did not. The literature, almost universally, holds
that the use of BIM and/or IPD will positively impact the
project performance measures. Future research will deal
with the development of rigorous methodologies to
quantify and then test generally accepted notions about the
effect of BIM and/or IPD on project performance
measures. These analyses promise to provide an
interesting perspective from which to evaluate the existing
literature, which is largely qualitative, case-based, and
anecdotal in nature.
5. Conclusion
A critical analysis of the literature was conducted to
develop a general understanding of the current status of
BIM and IPD and the broad spectrum of sub-topic areas
that research in these complimentary fields has already
touched. The literature is overwhelmingly positive with
respect to the positive potential of BIM and/or IPD.
Several studies have documented synergies between the
technologies. The majority view is that BIM is an
enabling tool for IPD. However, one study indicated an
opposite finding. Industry groups (e.g., AIA, AGC) have
developed model agreements to facilitate the use of IPD.
New approaches to BIM, including modular construction,
prefabrication, document conversion, and automatic rule-
checking have also been explored. BIM and IPD
necessitate the forward shift of design work flow, altering
traditional definitions of the design phases. The
importance of trust between contracting parties is
identified as being paramount in order for IPD to be
successful. Conflicting findings exist regarding the ROI of
BIM, highlighting the need for further study of this and
related issues.
The literature was synthesized and deficiencies were
identified in the realm of quantitative analysis/verification
of the purported benefits of the technologies. As such,
further study is recommended, including the need to better
understand the relationship between BIM and/or IPD
adoption and project performance (e.g., ROI, cost,
schedule, safety, etc.) measures. The problems were
conceptualized for future study and a preliminary
methodological concept was put forth, recommending the
use of data from traditional projects in addition to data
from projects utilizing BIM and/or IPD. Analysis of
interactions between the two technologies is also
While BIM and IPD both hold great promise to
remedy some of the industry’s many problems, more
research utilizing rigorous quantitative methods applied to
actual project data is required to properly measure and
evaluate the effect of both technologies on the industry.
American Institute of Architects and AIA California
Council (2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide.
Retrieved from
AIAS077630 on May 1, 2011.
Azhar, S., Hein, M., and Sketo, B. (2008). Building
Information Modeling: Benefits, Risks and
Challenges. Proceedings, 44th Annual International
Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction.
Retrieved from
CPGT182002008.pdf on November 7, 2010.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for
Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT
Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology
Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31,
Becerik-Gerber, B., and Kensak, K. (2010). Building
Information Modeling in Architecture, Engineering,
and Construction: Emerging Research Directions and
Trends. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, 136(3), 139-147. doi:
Chan, A., Chan, D., and Ho, K. (2003). An Empirical
Study of the Benefits of Construction Partnering in
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
34 Benedict D. Ilozor and David J. Kelly
Hong Kong. Construction Management and
Economics, 21(5), 523-533. doi: 10.1080/0144619032
Chen, W., and Chen, T. (2007). Critical Success Factors
for Construction Partnering in Taiwan. International
Journal of Project Management, 25, 475-485.
Construction Users Roundtable, (2004). Collaboration,
Integrated Information, and the Project Lifecycle in
Building Design, Construction and Operation.
(CURT Publication No. WP-1202). Retrieved from
Construction_Users_Round_Table.pdf on August 5,
Dossick, C. and Neff, G. (2010). Organizational
Divisions in BIM-Enabled Commercial Construction.
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 136(4), 459-467. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
Eastman, C. A. (2006). New opportunities for IT
Research in Construction. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, 4200, 163-174. doi:10.1007/11888598_18
Eastman, C.A., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston, K.
(2008). BIM handbook: a guide to building
information modeling for owners, managers,
designers, engineers, and contractors. Hoboken, NJ:
Eastman, C., Lee, J., Jeong, Y., and Lee, J. (2009).
Automatic Rule-Based Checking of Building Designs.
Automation in Construction, 18, 1011-1033.
El-adaway, I.H. (2010). Integrated Project Delivery Case
Study: Guidelines for Drafting Partnering Contract.
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in
Engineering and Construction, 2(4), 248-254.
Froese, T. M. (2010). The Impact of Emerging
Information Technology on Project Management for
Construction. Automation in Construction, 19(5),
531-538. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.004
Gallaher, M.P., O’Connor, A.C., Dettbarn, J.L., and
Gilday, L.T. (2004). Cost Analysis of Inadequate
Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry.
Retrieved from
build04/art022.html on July 23, 2011.
Ghassemi, R. and Becerik-Gerber, B. (2011).
Transitioning to Integrated Project Delivery: Potential
Barriers and Lessons Learned. Lean Construction
Journal, 2011, 32-52. Retrieved from http://www.lean on May 14, 2011.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory,
Action Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis.
Berkley and Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press.
Giel, B., Issa, R., Olbina, S. (2010). Return On
Investment Analysis of Building Information
Modeling in Construction. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Computing in Civil and
Building Engineering, UK. Retrieved from
eedings/pdf/pf77.pdf on August 5, 2011.
Kent, D.C. and Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010). Understanding
Construction Industry Experience and Attitudes
Toward Integrated Project Delivery, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8),
815-825. doi:10.1061(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000188
Lancaster, F.D. and Tobin, J. (2010). Integrated Project
Delivery: Next Generation BIM for Structural
Engineering. 2010 Structural Congress, ASCE.
Retrieved from
ASCE%202010/data/papers/300.pdf on May 1, 2011.
Lu, T., Yang, H., Yang, R., and Cai, S. (2007). Automatic
Analysis and Integration of Architectural Drawings.
International, Journal on Document Analysis and
Recognition, 9, 31-47. doi:10.1007/s10032-006-0029-
Lu, N., and Korman, T. (2010). Implementation of
Building Information Modeling in Modular
Construction: Benefits and Challenges. Construction
Research Congress 2010, ASCE. doi:10.1061/41109
Molenaar K., Sobin, N., Gransberg, D., McCuen, T.,
Korkmaz, S., and Horman, S. (2009). Sustainable
High Performance Projects and Projects Delivery
Methods, A State-of-Practice Report. Report to the
Charles Pankow Foundation and the Design-Build
Institute of America, September 2009, 31 pages.
Retrieved from
2009ReportPankowDBIA.pdf on July 23, 2011.
National Association of State Facilities Administrators,
Construction Owners Association of American,
Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers,
Associated General Contractors, and AIA (2010).
Integrated Project Delivery for Public and Private
Owners. Retrieved from
stry_topics/project_delivery on July 23, 2011.
Ogunsanmi, O., Salako, and Ajayi, O. (2011). Risk
Classification Model for Design and Build Projects.
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production
Management, 1(1), 46-60.
Pawson, D., and Redenbach, B. (2006). Partnering
Reconsidered; Court Finds Government Engineers at
Fault. Canadian Consulting Engineer, 44. Document
Popov, V., Juocevicius, V., Migilimskas, D.,
Ustinovichius, L., and Mikakauskas, S. (2010). The
Use of a Virtual Building Design and Construction
Model for Developing an Effective Project Concept in
5D Environment. Automation in Construction, 19,
357-367. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.12.005
Post, N. (2009, September 30). Market Study Finds
Engineers Get Lowest Return from BIM. Engineering
News Record. Retrieved from http://www.enr.con on July 20, 2011.
Post, N. (2011). A Cautionary Digital Tale of Virtual
Design and Construction. Engineering News Record.
Retrieved from on
July 20, 2011.
Rooke, J., Seymour, D., Fellow, R. (2004). Planning for
Claims, an Ethnography of Industry Culture.
Construction Management and Economics, 22, 655-
662. doi:10.1080/014461904200026324
Sacks, R., Koskela, L., Dave, B., and Owen, R. (2010).
Interaction of Lean and Building Information
Modeling in Construction, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 136(9), 968-980.
Sacks, R. and Partouche, R. (2011). Empire State
Building Project: Archetype of Mass Construction,
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 36(6), 702-710. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery in the Commercial Construction Industry 35
Singleton, M.S. and Hamzeh, F. (2011). Implementing
Integrated Project Delivery on Department of Navy
Construction Projects, Lean Construction Journal,
2011, 17-31. Retrieved from http://www.leanconstru on May 14, 2011.
Smith, R.E., Mossman, A. and Emmitt, S. (2011).
Editorial: Lean and Integrated Project Delivery
Special Issue, Lean Construction Journal, 01-16.
Retrieved from http://www.leanconstructionjournal.
org on May 14, 2011.
Succar, B. (2009). Building Information Modeling
Framework: A Research and Delivery Foundation for
Industry Stakeholders. Automation in Construction,
18(3), 357. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2008.10.003
Teicholz, P. (2004,). Labor Productivity Declines in the
Construction Industry: Causes and Remedies, AEC
bytes Viewpoints. Retrieved from http://www.aecb on August 3,
Tylor, E.B. (1913). Primitive Culture, Researches into
the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion,
Art, and Custom, London: John Murray.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis (2010). Gross Output by Industry, Release
Date: December 14, 2010. Retrieved from
p=1 on August 3, 2011.
United State Army Corps of Engineers (2010). Partnering:
A Tool for USACE, Engineering Construction, and
Operations (IWR Pamphelt 91-ADR-P-4). Retrieved
orts/91-ADR-P-4.pdf on July 23, 2011.
Wong, P. and Cheung, S. (2004). Trust in Construction
Partnering: Views From Parties of the Partnering
Dance. International Journal of Project Management,
22, 437-446. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.001
Benedict D. Ilozor, Ph.D., MNIA, FMA, Assoc. AIA,
LEED AP BD+C, is a tenured full professor, contributing
architecture, construction management, renewable energy
and sustainability, as well as facilities planning, design,
and management expertise to construction management
programs in the School of Engineering Technology at
Eastern Michigan University. With more than 100
publications (refereed journal papers, articles,
monographs, etc.), he has received various honors and
awards of excellence, and best paper prizes on innovation
and sustainability in the USA, Australia, and the UK. He
is an editor (Asia Pacific) for the Journal of Management
Development, and he is on the editorial board of several
high impact journals such as the American Society of
Civil Engineers Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, Journal of Construction, the Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, and the
International Journal of Construction Project
David J. Kelly, P.E., LEED AP BD+C, is Preconstruction
Manager in the Detroit, MI, USA office of Turner
Construction Company. A licensed Professional Engineer
in Illinois and Michigan, David is also a part-time
graduate student in the College of Technology at Eastern
Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, USA. He serves on
the Board of Directors of the Southeast Michigan Branch
of the American Society of Civil Engineers and is a
LEED Accredited Professional with a specialization in
building design and construction.
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2012, 2(1), 23-36
36 Benedict D. Ilozor and David J. Kelly
... IPD will help to remove obstacles to the application of BIM [5], while BIM is the technical support for the successful implementation of IPD [45]. Moreover, the integration of BIM and IPD can improve overall results of the design and construction processes [46]. Thus, the most important solution to enhancing collaboration is the integrated application of BIM and IPD [47]. ...
Full-text available
This paper explores a novel approach to clarify the applicability of the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) principles in a certain region or country which has a specific cultural background, the paper further promotes the effective application of IPD principles. The method of combining qualitative and quantitative analysis is adopted, incorporating scientometric analysis, questionnaire survey, qualitative analysis, and a measurement model. On the basis of 310 sample data collected from various practitioners and researchers in China’s construction industry, the measurement models of IPD applicability analysis on the average level of sample (ALS) and the best level of sample (BLS) are established, respectively. The results show that these measurement models are essentially consistent with the composition of the conceptual model, including project performance, contractual principles, collaboration-related principles, behavioral principles, and catalysts. Thus, this paper provides a scientific and methodological basis for how to effectively apply the IPD principles. This study sheds light on project delivery system research in two aspects: it proposes a new idea to study the applicability of IPD principles and lays a foundation for the future quantitative study on the impact mechanism of IPD principles on project performance.
... Increased collaboration is not only a prospective beneficial outcome of BIM adoption (Barlish and Sullivan, 2012); it is a prerequisite for full attainment of these potential benefits (Matthews et al., 2018). Thus, studies have suggested that the realisation of BIM's key benefits relies upon the degree of collaboration achieved and that this is not achievable with traditional project procurement approaches (Ilozor and Kelly, 2012;Collins and Parrish, 2014;Vass and Gustavsson, 2017). Objectively, the adoption of 4D BIM provides very little added value without the necessary and timely integration of construction scheduling and BIM model creation; a process that is hardly possible in traditional project frameworks. ...
Full-text available
Building Information Modelling (BIM) can be defined as a set of tools, processes and technologies that are enabled by a digital multi-dimensional representation of the physical and functional characteristics of a built asset. The ‘fourth’ dimension (4D BIM) incorporates time-related project information in the 3D model to simulate and optimise the project construction process. To achieve this, the 3D objects within the aggregated design model must be linked with each activity in the construction schedule. However, the levels of maturity and expertise in using BIM amongst the project participants still varies considerably. This generates collaboration problems within the project and adds further obstacles to the ability to derive full benefits from BIM. Ideally, 4D BIM can be automatically generated, but in reality, because the 3D and 4D models are created separately and at different stages of the project, this is not currently possible, and the process requires considerable manual effort. The research reported in this paper was prompted by the construction of a new training and research building: the Nanterre 2 CESI building in France. It proposes an efficient approach that minimises the effort of creating 4D BIM construction schedules. The CESI four-phase process aims to help project participants to fully exploit the potential of 4D BIM and enables: 1) a clear expression of the 4D BIM objectives; 2) the identification of information requirements and relevant workflows to achieve these objectives; 3) the implementation of a project schedule; and 4) BIM model production to suit the 4D BIM use case. Although the CESI approach was developed in the context of the French contracting system, the observations and conclusions of this study are intended to be generally applicable.
... The implementation of the IPD requires several amendments to the governing regulations and contractual agreements (Ilozor and Kelly 2012). The implementation of the IPD requires the formation of a collective framework team and the development of personnel training, which is very important for the implementation of contracts within the speci ed budget targets and on time (Ghassemi and Becerik 2011). ...
Full-text available
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is an approach to project delivery that aims to form a collaborative effort between project parties so that optimal construction is achieved by reducing costs and positively improving production. It is distinguished by a multilateral contractual agreement that typically allows risks and rewards to be shared among project stakeholders. This paper aims to explore the distinctive features of the IPD through statistically significant performance differences between IPD and traditional project delivery systems TPD. Data were collected to measure the quantitative performance of 20 projects for the period between (2010–2022) with detailed interviews of experts and the parties to those projects. Univariate data analyzes, such as T-test and one-way ANOVA, were performed to assess IPD performance. According to the statistical significance of 15 performance standards, improvements in project performance have been achieved through the application of IPD. This study showed acceptance of the assumption of homogeneity of variance and normal distribution since the value of the mean square error test is 0.306 and the level of significance is 0.051, which is greater than 0.05. The study also showed that the best alternative to analysis of variance if has a difference in the means is the use of non-parametric statistics. This study presents a significant contribution to improving the quality of project work and controlling cost and time by following IPD compared to other traditional project delivery systems. These results will provide evidence for project decision makers to follow the appropriate delivery method for Iraqi construction projects.
... Increased collaboration is not only a prospective beneficial outcome of BIM adoption [107]; it is a prerequisite for the full attainment of these potential benefits [108]. Thus, studies have suggested that the realisation of BIM's key benefits relies upon the degree of collaboration achieved and that this is not achievable with traditional project procurement approaches [109][110][111]. Objectively, the adoption of 4D BIM provides very little added value without the necessary and timely integration of construction scheduling and BIM model creation; a process that is difficult to achieve in traditional project frameworks. ...
Full-text available
Building Information Modelling (BIM) is now a globally recognised phenomenon, though its adoption remains inconsistent and variable between and within the construction sectors of different countries. BIM technology has enabled a wide range of functional applications, one of which, '4D BIM', involves linking the tasks in a project's construction schedule to its object-orientated 3D model to improve the logistical decision making and delivery of the project. Ideally, this can be automatically generated but in reality, this is not currently possible, and the process requires considerable manual effort. The level of maturity and expertise in the use of BIM amongst the project participants still varies considerably; adding further obstacles to the ability to derive full benefits from BIM. Reflecting these challenges, two case studies are presented in this paper. The first describes a predominantly manual approach that was used to ameliorate the implementation of 4D BIM on a project in Paris. In fact, there is scope for automating the process: a combination of BIM and Artificial Intelligence (AI) could exploit newly-available data that are increasingly obtainable from smart devices or IoT sensors. A prerequisite for doing so is the development of dedicated ontologies that enable the formalisation of the domain knowledge that is relevant to a particular project typology. Perhaps the most challenging example of this is the case of renovation projects. In the second case study, part of a large European research project, the authors propose such an ontology and demonstrate its application by developing a digital tool for application within the context of deep renovation projects.
... The client comes up with a brief of the project or facility intended to build. Some of the steps involved in this phase include; finding a portion of land for the project, choosing an architect/required built consultant professional, and initial concept of [2, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 26, 27, 30, 32, 35, 37, 40, 43, 44] 24 Fig. 3 Impact of BIM technology on construction project lifecycle pre-designs [5,9,26,35]. This stage is very crucial, it will determine the success of the project about client satisfaction. ...
Full-text available
Building Information Modelling technology (BIM-t) continues to gain more attention. Its adoption creates a platform that allows the built environment professionals to have a common database for project information sharing. While there is an increased perception/impression that the implementation of BIM-t on construction projects positively influences the construction project delivery, the critical analysis of such impacts is still missing. This paper, therefore, conducts a critical review of the impacts of BIM-t application on construction projects delivery and provides reports on research gaps and possible future research directions. This paper employed a systematic examination of related literature on the subject of BIM-t between the years 2008 to 2021. The search includes published journal articles, thesis, books, documents, and conference proceedings. Different databases including; ResearchGate, Taylor and Francis, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Google scholar were explored. The findings indicate seventh (17) positive impacts gathered from 41 reviewed publications. The listed positive impacts were grouped under the different construction phases. The implications of the findings were discussed and future research directions were suggested.
... Especially in the design phase, where more frequent changes are made, aspects of cybersecurity become very important. One tool that makes the IPD process more robust and efficient is BIM (Ilozor & Kelly, 2012). ...
Full-text available
Digitalisation of the construction industry is exposing it to cybersecurity risks. All phases of construction can be affected. Particularly vulnerable are information-intensive phases such as building design and building operation. Construction is among the last industries that are discovering its cybersecurity risks and can rely on frameworks developed for other contexts. In this paper, we evaluate the cybersecurity risks of the design phase of construction using the Cyber Assessment Framework from the National Cybersecurity Centre (NCSC) of the UK. The goal of this study is twofold. First, to examine cybersecurity risks themselves, and second, to evaluate the applicability of the NCSC framework for construction to see if and how construction is specific. The analysis shows that the cybersecurity risks follow the information impact curve that has been motivating the introduction of Building Information Modelling (BIM). The framework is applicable but is weak in addressing the specifics of the construction industrial ecosystem, which involves a multitude of dynamically connected actors, their overlapping authorities, and conflicting motives. It is suggested that a specialized constructionrelated framework should be developed.
Full-text available
Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an integrated system which includes everything related to a construction project and places it in one template. In this study questionnaire survey technique is used to determine what the actual barriers that hamper its implementation in the Libyan construction industry. The research was designed focusing mainly on project parties (Architects, Contractors, Managers, Engineers, Clients, etc.). The barriers to BIM adoption are divided into six categories; personal barriers, BIM process barriers, business barriers, technical barriers, organization barriers, and market barriers. The results were analyzed using Cronbach Coefficient, Relative Importance Index (RII) with mean score and standard deviation, Pearson Correlation and significance test analysis, and Hypotheses testing were used to analyze the data obtained and to identify the most significant barriers. Results of this study showed that the main barriers for implementing BIM are: lack of BIM education (RII=0.853), lack of publicity and awareness (RII=0.840), and lack of understanding of BIM and its benefits (RII=0.835). In terms of categories Personal barriers are considered the most effective hurdles for implementing BIM in the Libyan construction industry (RII=0.797) followed by the market barriers category (RII=0.745) then Organization Barriers (RII=0.693).
Full-text available
Purpose The utilisation of building information modelling (BIM) technology is rapidly increasing among construction professionals across the world. Notwithstanding, recent studies revealed a low level of BIM implementation in the context of the Nigerian construction sector. Moreover, previous studies have established that BIM application comes with its share of various barriers. Therefore, this study aims to carry out an on-site survey on barriers to the application of BIM on construction sites in the Nigerian construction industry. Design/methodology/approach An extensive review of literature on BIM barriers was conducted, from where 33 factors were identified as significant BIM barriers peculiar to the developing countries. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to the targeted respondents, who are practicing professionals in the Nigerian construction industry, based on the identified barriers. The data collected were analysed by using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings The principal component analysis revealed that 27 barriers were peculiar to the Nigerian construction industry. The “lack of familiarity with BIM capacity, habitual resistance to change from the traditional style of design and build, and poor awareness of BIM benefit” were identified as the three most critical barriers hindering BIM application on construction sites in the Nigerian construction industry. Practical implications This study reveals key information on the peculiar barriers to BIM application in the Nigerian construction industry. The avoidance of these barriers will not only assist various construction stakeholders in the successful implementation of BIM application on a construction project but also promote information management systems and productivity within the construction industry to a great extent. These will further improve post-construction activities. Originality/value This study provides a substantial understanding of BIM state of the art in the context of barriers hindering BIM application on construction sites in the Nigerian construction industry.
Die Integrierte Projektabwicklung (IPA) ist ein neues Verfahren, um insbesondere große komplexe Bauprojekte erfolgreich umzusetzen. In Deutschland noch wenig bekannt, beginnt es sich auch hier zu etablieren. Dieser Schnelleinstieg stellt die IPA und ihren innovativen Denkansatz vor. Dazu gehören eine frühzeitige Einbindung aller wesentlichen Beteiligten, das Prinzip der Einstimmigkeit sowie eine von Respekt und Vertrauen geprägte Projektkultur. Ein neues Vergütungsmodell liefert zusätzlich Anreize zur Kooperation mit dem Ziel, gemeinsam das Beste für das Bauprojekt zu erreichen.
Traditional contractual delivery methods are perceived to have flaws that become more apparent when projects increase in size or complexity. The Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a contractual framework that features enhanced collaboration, risk and reward sharing, and early contractor involvement under a single contract among the major project parties (owner, engineer and contractor). This delivery methodology became more apparent due to the increasing level of complexity of the construction projects and the need for efficient risk and cost sharing to enhance project performance and foster collaboration rather than the traditional hostility. IPD methodology has proven promising results in many parts of the world. However, it has not been applied in Egypt. In addition, no significant investigations have been made to address the adaptability of the Egyptian construction sector to the IPD delivery. The objective of this research is to analyze the Egyptian market’s preparedness to the adoption of IPD delivery. First, a thorough literature review was carried out to identify common barriers and enablers of applying IPD in construction. Second, a survey was carried out to assess and rank such barriers and enablers as specific to the Egyptian construction sector. Finally, through structured interviews with contract experts, strategies and guidelines were devised to be used by Egyptian owners, consultants, and contractors who have the intent of implementing the IPD delivery in their projects. The findings reveal that the main barriers to implementing IPD stem from cultural resistance to the new system and lack of knowledge about it. In addition, even if owners overcome their cultural barriers and intend to apply IPD in their projects, there is a significant shortage of IPD experts in the country to help them with that. The results and subsequent strategies outlined by the research are expected to help the construction industry in Egypt gain more depth on the benefits and application of IPD. Consequently, the authors hope that such study encourages the adoption of IPD in Egyptian projects so that they can healthier construction in terms of better collaboration, less cost overruns, enhanced schedule performance, and minimal waste.
Full-text available
Executive SummaryIntroductionTypes of Construction FirmsInformation Contractors Want from BIMProcesses to Develop a Contractor Building Information ModelReduction of Design Errors Using Clash DetectionQuantity Takeoff and Cost EstimatingConstruction Analysis and PlanningIntegration with Cost and Schedule Control and Other Management FunctionsUse for Offsite FabricationUse of BIM Onsite: Verification, Guidance, and Tracking of Construction ActivitiesImplications for Contract and Organizational ChangesBIM Implementation
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Modular Construction consists of one or more structure units fabricated in a manufacturing plant away from the jobsite. In the building industry, prefabricated modules are normally completed with trim work, electrical, mechanical and plumbing installed. Previous studies have proved that Modular Construction provided many advantages to the built environment, including the reduction of need for workforce, the reduction of onsite Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, and the improvement of construction schedule and product quality; however the extensive demand of pre-project planning and coordination among members of cross-interdisciplinary professionals have significantly impeded the application of this technique. With the recent development of Building Information Modeling (BIM), these challenges could be overcome through the BIM platform. Through case studies the benefits and challenges of implementing BIM in modular construction are clearly identified.
Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917) was an English anthropologist who is widely considered the founder of anthropology as a scientific discipline. He was the first Professor of Anthropology at the University of Oxford from 1896 to 1909, and developed a broad definition of culture which is still used by scholars. First published in 1871, this classic work explains Tylor's idea of cultural evolution in relation to anthropology, a social theory which states that human cultures invariably change over time to become more complex. Unlike his contemporaries, Tylor did not link biological evolution to cultural evolution, asserting that all human minds are the same irrespective of a society's state of evolution. His book was extremely influential in popularising the study of anthropology and establishing cultural evolution as the main theoretical framework followed by anthropologists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Volume 2 contains Tylor's interpretation of animism in society.
The importance and benefits of partnering, which has been introduced as a method of reducing overall costs, avoiding litigation and achieving a more positive working environment, are discussed. Partnering is the creation of an owner-contractor relationship that promotes the achievement of mutually beneficial goals. It involves an agreement in principle to share the risks involved in completing the project, and to establish and promote a nurturing partnership environment. Partnering seeks to create a new cooperative attitude in completing government contracts. The partnering workshop results in a written partnering charter, which is a moral commitment to the dispute-resolution mechanism to ensure efficient problem-solving and periodic evaluation of the partnering process. Owners and governments should carefully weigh the benefits of partnership against creating legal obligations.
A lawsuit over construction of a life-sciences building at a major university stands as the first known claim related to the use of building information modeling by an architect. For the life-sciences building, the architect and its mechanical-electrical-plumbing engineer used BIM to fit the building's MEP systems into the ceiling plenum. But the design team did not tell the contractor that the extremely tight fit, coordinated in the BIM, depended on a very specific installation sequence. Lewis declines to offer specifics on the project, other than to say the building is open. He also declines to name the players. The problem was poor communication. The design team never discussed the installation sequence with the contractor, and the contractor wasn't sophisticated enough to understand the importance of assembling the components in a certain order.
This paper presents a case study through which a multinational contracting firm aimed to introduce integrated project delivery through strategic partnering into its industry operations. The study reports on a research carried out by the author on behalf of the firm to set out series of principles and guidelines to consider when drafting a standard partnering contract whereby the owner, contractor, suppliers, and manufacturers collaboratively work together under the same terms and conditions. A partnering contract would never, on its own, change the culture and environment of the construction process and thus, strategic partnering should be promoted not only at project specific activities but at all organizational activities. Based on this project, the paper presents a list of ten managerial and contractual issues to promote strategic partnering. The author hopes that the results of this case study would foster legal professionals toward drafting a modern partnering contract, which should help in developing a more effective and efficient contracting environment.
The recent emergence of building information modeling (BIM) and the evolution of virtual design and construction (VDC) in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry are fundamentally changing the process by which buildings are designed and constructed. However, the perceived high initial cost of implementing BIM has deterred many industry professionals from adopting this technology. This paper aims to facilitate the decision-making process in the adoption of BIM by presenting the cost savings associated with implementing BIM. In many cases, an owner's willingness to pay for the BIM is crucial in the contractor's decision to use BIM. Therefore, in order to show the returns on the investment (ROI) of paying additional fees, data was gathered from three case studies on three sets of similar projects, with each set consisting of one recently constructed BIM-assisted project and one earlier, similar project completed without BIM. The potential savings to an owner choosing to invest in BIM as an additional service were estimated based on the measurable cost benefits associated with reduced schedule overruns, fewer requests for information (RFIs), and reduced change orders. This research confirmed that BIM is a worthwhile investment in the context of the company studied. In the three case studies presented, the ROI of BIM varied greatly from 16 to 1,654%. Additionally, the total number of RFIs was reduced by 34% on a small tilt-wall project, 68% on a three-story assisted living facility, and 43% on a midrise commercial condominium project, and the number of change orders was reduced by 40, 48, and 37%, respectively. Though an owner's decision to invest in BIM should be weighed against the scale and complexity of a project, this research suggests that savings may be realized regardless of the size of a construction project. The paper presents a systematic approach for estimating the ROI realized in adopting BIM using standard project documentation. Finally, general suggestions for documenting BIM-assisted construction projects are outlined based on limitations uncovered during this study. (C) 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.