The interplay of IPD and BIM: a
systematic literature review
Taha Karasu,Kirsi Aaltonen and Harri Haapasalo
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu,
Purpose –Integrated project delivery (IPD) and building information modeling (BIM) have been discussed
as prominent collaborative concepts in recent architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) literature,
thus recommended for more advanced value creation. However, they have been studied predominantly as
discrete even though they are typically highly interrelated. This study aims to enhance collaboration in AEC
projects by tracing recent trends in IPD and BIM literature by making sense of trends and by exploring how
their interplay has been discussed and conceptualized.
Design/methodology/approach –This systematic literature review draws on Scopus and Web of
Science as the primary databases. In total, 120 academic papers and review articles were sourced. Yet, the
ﬁnal sample includes 71 sources from the past decade (2011–2020), focusing on both IPD and BIM.
Findings –This study identiﬁes 11 interrelated and overlapping themes that are indicative of trends in the recent
IPD and BIM literature. This research found that among the identiﬁed themes, the clusters of sustainability,
transformation and increasing the competence level of staff in the AEC industry, in addition to the concept of
quality, require more extensive research in the context of IPD and BIM. Additionally, this study identiﬁes four
different approaches to the interplay of IPD and BIM, indicating an absence of scholarly consistency.
Originality/value –Based on the systematic analysis of the recent literature, this study indicates that IPD
and BIM have several joint fundamental cornerstones. It is evident that both concepts support the
implementation of each other. The success of implementing either one is strongly related to the other.
Additionally, we have not found earlier systematic literature reviews that examine the interplay between IPD
and BIM in the recent AEC literature.
Keywords Architecture, engineering and construction, Systematic literature review, Collaboration,
Building information modeling, Integrated project delivery, Interplay
Paper type Literature review
Chronic low productivity and poor construction project performance have prompted
architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) scholars and professionals to search for
alternatives to traditional project delivery models and practices (Walker and Rowlinson,
2020a;Eastman et al.,2008). In particular, failures of collaboration and integration, which
are crucial for enhancing and managing value creation (Aapaoja et al.,2013), have been
identiﬁed as some of the main root causes of these performance challenges (Davies and
Mackenzie, 2014). However, effective collaboration poses challenges for construction
projects, which typically involve high levels of interdependence within and between
© Taha Karasu, Kirsi Aaltonen and Harri Haapasalo. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
IPD and BIM
Received 19 July2021
Revised 29 October2021
4 January 2022
21 February 2022
Accepted 23 March2022
Emerald Publishing Limited
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
organizations (Thompson, 1967), and each stakeholder’s actions typically affect others
Integrated project delivery (IPD) and building information modeling (BIM) have both
been advanced as solutions that enhance integration and collaboration by supporting early
involvement of key parties, transparent ﬁnancials, shared risks and rewards, joint decision
making and collaborative multiparty agreement (Lahdenperä, 2012;Hietajärvi, 2017).
Some countries have a relatively more solid background in IPD and BIM (Walker and
Rowlinson, 2020a). For instance, the framework arrangements have been used by local councils in
the UK for several decades (Khalfan and McDermot, 2006), in addition to the government’starget
to introduce level 2 BIM to all central government-sponsored projects (Chang et al.,2017). Project
partnering as a predecessor of IPD has been used in Australia since 1994 (Sakal, 2005;Morwood
et al., 2008) and has been widely adopted in the country soon after the positive experiences
(Lahdenperä, 2012). Additionally, positive experiences resulted in ample sources of literature
about Alliance Projects as an IPD form in Australia (Walker and Rowlinson, 2020a). However, the
use of BIM has not been cemented yet even though IPD has a comparatively strong background
(Stride et al.,2020). Overall, despite the considerable promise of IPD and BIM and scarce but
signiﬁcant progress toward their adoption, their full potential is yet to be achieved globally
(Azhar et al.,2012;Rowlinson, 2017;Holzer, 2011;Walker and Rowlinson, 2020a).
As key elements of inter-organizational collaboration in AEC practice, IPD and BIM have
attracted increasing research interest over the last two decades (Yalcinkaya and Singh, 2015;
Walker and Rowlinson, 2020a). However, although closely interrelated in practice, the two
methods have typically been investigated separately, with little discussion or conceptualization
of their interplay. While these in-depth studies are clearly important, they need to be grounded in
a broader overview, especially in what is still a relatively novel area of research. To address this
issue, the present study seeks to develop a fuller understanding of the interplay between IPD
and BIM, contributing to better collaboration and integration in major construction projects.
Fragmented and disintegrated processes have been identiﬁed as the main driver of the
paradigm shift from traditional construction practices (Lahdenperä, 2012) to collaborative
approaches like IPD and BIM, which the AEC industry sets great store by (Rowlinson, 2017;
Elghaish et al., 2019). IPD has been characterized as a highly effective and efﬁcient
procurement strategy (Rowlinson, 2017) as compared to traditional project delivery
arrangements, which typically involve bi-contractual relationships. The IPD approach
provides for a multi-party agreement between the project owner, designer and contractors,
with shared risks and rewards and joint goals (AIA, 2010).
One of the most, if not the most, common IPD deﬁnitions belongs to AIA (2007):
[...] 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.
However, this deﬁnition could classify partly integrated but still traditional project
deliveries, such as design-build, as collaborative approaches (Mesa et al.,2019). In this paper,
we adopted the deﬁnition of AIA (2010) because traditional and collaborative procurement
forms are distinguished more explicitly and cover other collaborative delivery forms that
Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2015) classiﬁed, namely: partnering, integrated project delivery,
alliancing, early contractor involvement and framework arrangements.
With the adoption of AIA (2010)’sdeﬁnition, we used IPD as an umbrella term for the
aforementioned collaborative delivery forms that were classiﬁed in Walker and Lloyd-
Walker (2015).AIA (2010) deﬁnes IPD as:
[...] a project delivery method distinguished by a contractual agreement between a minimum of
the owner, design professional, and builder where risk and reward are shared, and stakeholder
success is dependent on project success.
IPDs are eventualized with the following fundamental principles: multiparty agreement, mutual
respect and trust, shared beneﬁts and rewards, collaborative decision making, early involvement
of key stakeholders, early goal-setting, intense planning, open communication and effective
organization and leadership (Kent and Becerik-Gerber, 2010;Mihic et al.,2014;Cox et al.,2016).
Another distinguishing feature of IPD is its particular focus on BIM (Lahdenperä, 2012), which is
widely regarded as one of the construction industry’smostinﬂuential methods (Oraee et al.,2017).
Because BIM has been deﬁned in various ways by different disciplines, there is no agreed
deﬁnition, either among practitioners or in the literature (Mansoori and Haapasalo, 2019).
Watson (2011) takes the discussion of BIM deﬁnition to another level and stresses ambiguity
in the Building Information Modeling term itself questioning whether the term “Building”in
BIM is verb or noun. Building information modeling and information modeling of the
building reﬂect two different approaches toward BIM, namely, BIM as a process and BIM as
a product. BIM as a product was viewed as a virtual representation of a building and
information database of the whole project lifecycle (Kymmell, 2008;Zuppa et al., 2009), while
the stream of research that takes BIM as a process indicates that BIM is beyond being a
technological tool and being a change in process with a new way of thinking and behavior
(Turk, 2016;Hardin and McCool, 2015). Azhar (2011) deﬁnes BIM as a representation of a
new paradigm within the AEC industry, one that encourages the integration of all
stakeholders roles on a project. Therefore, successful implementation of BIM requires not
only a change in technology but also a change in process (Eastmen et al., 2008; Azhar et al.,
2012;Sacks et al., 2018). This paper adopts Bryde et al. (2013)’s description: BIM can be
characterized as an innovative data-driven technology that supports the procurement,
construction, pre-fabrication and facilities management aspects of project management.
As a natural consequence of this paradigm shift, IPD and BIM have been widely studied
through various theoretical lenses (Yalcinkaya and Singh, 2015;Halttula et al.,2015;Bilge
and Yaman, 2021). Although IPD and BIM are natural companions (Azhar et al.,2012),
research on the two methods has remained largely discrete. Numerous recent studies (Love
et al.,2017;Elghaish et al., 2020a;Mei et al., 2017;Piroozfar et al.,2019;Keskin et al., 2020;
Nawi et al., 2014;Sepasgozar et al., 2019) have reported evidence of their mutually
reinforcing effect, but the nature of this interplay remains unclear. For example, both Azhar
et al. (2012) and Chang et al. (2017) have arguedthat BIM is a prerequisite for IPD and lowers
barriers to implementation while other studies note the performance-enhancing and value-
additive effects of the relationship (Govender et al., 2018;Halttula et al.,2015).
In short, even though IPD and BIM are closely interlinked and have various attributes in
common, we surprisingly have not found a systematic literature review that would examine the
interplay of IPD and BIM in the recent AEC literature. Thus, the acceleration in the research
area invites a systematic review of the existing literature to gain a comprehensive overview of
current thinking, with particular reference to the neglected issue of the interplay between IPD
and BIM. To that end, the present study addresses the following research questions.
RQ1. What themes can be identiﬁed in studies of IPD and BIM over the last decade?
RQ2. How has the existing literature addressed the interplay of IPD and BIM?
To address RQ1, the study sought to identify and categorize themes in the extant literature,
including those that have been less extensively researched in addition to making sense of
themes and their relation to advanced value creation. To address RQ2, the study explored the
IPD and BIM
relationships between IPD, BIM and other independent variables. The overarching objective
was to situate the contribution of IPD and BIM to construction project management in terms of
their interplay. By mapping and analyzing the content and themes of relevant publications, we
were able to identify underlying trends and links not previously articulated in the literature,
and these insights provide an improved foundation for future research.
The present study contributes to AEC research in two ways: by identifying IPD- and BIM-
related themes in the existing literature with exploring the themes’relationship and by
clarifying the nature of the interplay of IPD and BIM. The systematic literature review (SLR)
methodology was deemed appropriate in light of the study objectives, focusing on peer-
reviewed academic papers and review articles published in the last decade. SLR is more
systematic, transparent and reproducible than traditional narrative literature reviews (Cook
et al.,1997). SLR, originally used extensively in the medical and health care ﬁeld as the basis for
policy decisions, was adopted by organization and management scholars over two decades ago
(Cook et al., 1997;Pilbeam, 2013). In addition to outlining the study, reference guides for SLR
(Tranﬁeld et al.,2003;Kitchenham, 2004) specify two main phases: performing and reporting.
Although the present study differs slightly, it adheres closely to these guidelines (Figure 1).
Before the performing stage of the study, the existing IPD and BIM literature was scanned
by the principal author to identify any research gaps, and the research questions were
formulated on that basis. We then speciﬁed key search terms and constraints and selected
Scopus and Web of Science as primary databases. Although Scopus covers a wider range of
construction project management journals (Oraee et al.,2017), the use of both databases
extended the range of relevant sources.
Performing a systematic search begins with theidentiﬁcation ofkey search terms that areas
extensive as possible at this stage (Mulrow, 1994). Search strings should be decided in
conjunction with search strategy (Tranﬁeld et al., 2003); the ﬁrst search string was designed
to identify academic articles and reviews from the last decade that referred to both IPD and
BIM. The search included peer-reviewed articles and reviews but did not extend to
conference papers because of their uncertain reliability. To locate papers related to BIM, we
used the terms “BIM”and “building information model*”. As a second search criterion,
we also scanned “IPD”and “integrated project”in abstracts, titles or keywords of papers.
The period 2011–2020 was selected because these concepts are relatively new in the ﬁeld. To
be more precise, our search string included all of the collaborative delivery forms speciﬁed
in Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2015), namely partnering, integrated project delivery,
alliancing, early contractor involvement and framework arrangements. IPD is used as an
“umbrella term”in this study referring to all the mentioned terms. Additionally, to ensure
that we captured studies that used more comprehensive terms to refer to IPD, the string also
included “collaborative framework”,“collaborative form,”“collaborative project delivery”
and “collaboration framework.”We located 113 studies from Scopus and 79 studies from
Web of Science. As 72 papers appeared in both databases, Web of Science provided an
additional seven papers. In total, 120 academic papers and review articles were sourced from
the two databases. To be more speciﬁc, Scopus and Web of Science databases were scanned
via the following search strings.
Search string for Scopus:
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( (“BIM”OR “building information model*”) AND (“integrated project”OR
“IPD”OR “partnering”OR “allianc*”OR “early contractor involvement”OR “framework
arrangement”OR “collaborative framework”OR “collaborative form”OR “collaborative project
delivery”OR “collaboration framework”)) AND PUBYEAR >2010 AND PUBYEAR <2021 AND
(LIMIT-TO(DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)).
Search string for Web of Science:
TS=((“BIM”OR “building information model*”) AND (“integrated project”OR “IPD”OR
“partnering”OR “allianc*”OR “early contractor involvement”OR “framework arrangement”
OR “collaborative framework”OR “collaborative form”OR “collaborative project delivery”OR
“collaboration framework”)) AND PY=(2011-2020) AND DT=(Review OR Article).
SLR studies should be based on structured inclusion/exclusion criteria. As these may be
relatively subjective, Kitchenham (2004) suggested that this step should be performed by
more than one researcher to ensure objectivity. A quality assessment provides more detailed
inclusion/exclusion criteria; the term “quality”is a little vague but relates to minimizing bias
and maximizing internal and external validity (Kitchenham, 2004). After the ﬁrst retrieval
phase, some papers were excluded based on a language other than English (5), irrelevant
discipline (health science) (3) and repetition (4). Additionally, two sources were excluded
because they were book chapters, and eight papers were excluded because they were still in
press. In total, 22 papers were excluded manually at this stage.
The retrieval and monitoring process involves the design of data extraction forms to
record and monitor data retrieved from primary studies (Tranﬁeld et al.,2003). A further
exclusion criterion speciﬁed that all selected papers must include some meaningful
discussion of IPD (or other collaborative project delivery methods) and BIM. Each of the 98
papers was read carefully and 27 studies were excluded that did not discuss at least one of
the focal concepts; for example, Chidambaram (2019) was excluded because it mentions
“integrated project delivery”three times, but these mentions were descriptive and did not
discuss the interplay of IPD and BIM. Following the retrieval and monitoring progress, the
IPD and BIM
research pool contained 71 high quality peer-reviewed academic articles or review papers
that discussed both IPD and BIM.
The ﬁnal element of this phase, data synthesis, collated and aggregated ﬁndings related
to a topic or research question (Mulrow, 1994). This phase acquires tools and techniques of
qualitative data synthesis. The goal was not to create a new theory but to explore how IPD
and BIM were comprehended in different contexts, and how their interplay was discussed in
different themes. Using Microsoft Excel and Mendeley, the extracted papers were coded and
the main discussion areas for each paper were determined. All the discussion points of IPD
and BIM interplay were highlighted and collated for each paper. Initially, the papers were
grouped around over 30 interrelated concepts and were then clustered around 11 high-level
themes. The themes are interrelated and overlapping by their nature, and papers discussed
more than one theme in most cases. Yet, the methodology of clustering was seeking the most
prominent theme, and enough evidence was always found to cluster each paper in a certain
theme. The interplay of IPD and BIM was aggregated, analyzed and analytically
synthesized in each theme and overall. Finally, we made sense of clustering of the themes
and interplay of IPD and BIM in subsequent chapters.
The areas that need more research were also identiﬁed. Rather than taking the measure
of the number of articles in each theme, we strived to ﬁnd gaps or areas of improvement
regarding IPD and BIM in their relation to advanced value creation for construction projects.
We asked the following questions to spot areas of improvement in IPD and BIM research:
Q1. How many papers does the theme include?
Q2. What are the reasons for coverage of the theme?
Q3. Does the theme receive growing attention in the AEC literature?
Q4. Is the theme discussed ata saturated level under other themes?
Q5. How critical is the theme for advanced valuecreation in a construction project?
Table 1 summarizes the main discussion areas and the number of studies related to each
theme, along with references. The sample studies are clustered around 11 interrelated
themes, noting data relations and big picture trends under each theme in terms of the
interplay of IPD and BIM. In other words, the following 11 interrelated themes emerged
from qualitative analysis of the carefully selected 71 research papers and review articles that
discussed both IPD and BIM between 2011 and 2020.
3.1 Adoption of integrated project delivery and building information modeling
Papers included in the category “adoption of IPD and BIM”looked for ways to overcome
barriers to IPD and/or BIM implementation in construction projects. The exception was
Fakhimi et al. (2017), who investigated BIM capabilities in another project context (the oil,
gas and petrochemical industry), noting that experience of IPD can facilitate BIM adoption.
We also explored whether IPD facilitates BIM adoption (or vice versa). A majority of
papers in this cluster clearly identiﬁed IPD as an antecedent to BIM (Holzer, 2011;Fakhimi,
2017;Lam et al.,2017;Boon et al., 2019;Li et al.,2019;Salleh et al.,2019); only three studies
suggested that IPD and BIM mutually facilitate and strengthen each other (Azhar, 2011;
Azhar et al.,2012;Piroozfar et al.,2019). Chang et al. (2017) conﬁrmed the positive effects of
BIM on IPD adoption and implementation. One study stressed the project owner’s (PO) role
from the SLR
Main discussion areas
that were combined from the references No. of sources References
Adoption of IPD and BIM
(Section 3.1) Small–medium size enterprises, raising
awareness, non-building projects, IPD and
BIM as enablers, barriers, problems
11 Azhar (2011),Holzer (2011);Azhar et al. (2012),Chang
et al. (2017);Fakhimi et al. (2017),Lam et al. (2017);
Govender et al. (2018),Boon et al. (2019);Li et al. (2019),
Piroozfar et al. (2019);Salleh et al. (2019)
Contractual models for
project delivery (Section 3.2) Legislation, alliance contracts, BIM
partnering, framework arrangements,
partnering, team integration, comparison of
project delivery forms, design-bid-build,
design-build, social capital, risk/reward
compensation model, risks of IPD
11 Kim and Dossick (2011),Porwal and Hewage (2013);
Zhang and Li (2014);Eadie et al. (2015),Franz et al.
(2017);Albano and Di Giuda (2018),Arifﬁnet al. (2018);
Bahram (2019),Salim and Mahjoob (2020);Zhang et al.
(2020),Chen et al. (2020)
Cost management and
ﬁnance (Section 3.3) Cost estimation, proﬁt distribution, activity-
based costing, earned value management,
5 D BIM and integration with 4 D BIM,
blockchain technology, change orders
8Harrison and Thurnell (2015),Love et al. (2017);Ma et al.
(2017),Teng et al. (2019);Elghaish et al. (2019;2020a,
2020b); Elghaish and Abrishami (2020a)
Sustainability (Section 3.4) OptEEmAL, IPD and BIM as sustainability
tools, sustainable building design,
sustainable socio-cultural beneﬁts of IPD
7Bynum et al. (2013),Wong and Fan (2013);Oduyemi
et al. (2017),Cohen and Snell (2018);Ma et al. (2018b);
Maskil-Leitan and Reychav (2018);García-Fuentes et al.
Technology (Section 3.5) IPD as BIM’s eventual goal, KanBIM
quality control system, model-driven
7Isikdag (2012),Goulding et al. (2014);Hiyama et al.
(2014),Monteiro et al. (2014);Liu and Shiv (2017);Götz
et al. (2020);Keskin et al. (2020)
Collaboration (Section 3.6) Collaboration platform, knowledge
exchange, intensive Big Room, drivers of
collaborative behavior, rent-seeking
behavior, motivations for hazard behavior,
6Alhava et al. (2015),Ma and Ma (2017);Mei et al. (2017),
Staykova and Underwood (2017);Ma et al. (2018a);Du
et al. (2019)
Increasing the competence
level of staff in the AEC
Incorporating IPD and BIM in the AEC
curriculum, pilot programs, construction
5Forgues and Becerik-Gerber (2013),MacDonald and
Mills (2013);Solnosky et al. (2014,2015); Jin et al. (2020)
Themes and main
discussion areas that
were emerged from
IPD and BIM
from the SLR
Main discussion areas
that were combined from the references No. of sources References
Supply chain integration
(Section 3.8) Supply chain partnership, types of supply
chain partnering, prefabrication, off-site
5Papadonikolaki et al. (2016),Li et al. (2017);
Papadonikolaki and Wamelink (2017),Hall et al. (2018);
Jin et al. (2018)
(Section 3.9) Facilities management, fragmentation,
integration of construction in design, BIM
as a catalyst, early involvement
4Nawi et al. (2014),Mayo and Issa (2016);Olatunji and
Akanmu (2015),Pishdad-Bozorgi et al. (2018)
Scheduling (Section 3.10) Four-dimensional BIM, delay, activity-
based costing, scheduling and cost
performance of IPD coupled with BIM and
4Umar et al. (2015),Nguyen and Akhavian (2019);
Sepasgozar et al. (2019);Elghaish and Abrishami
Transformation (Section 3.11) Industrial transformation, liminal roles,
exemplar projects 3Kraatz et al. (2014),Rowlinson (2017);Gustavsson (2018)
in barriers to IPD and BIM (Govender et al., 2018). Speciﬁcally, the study identiﬁed the main
barriers as PO’s resistance to change and failure to identify the beneﬁts of IPD and BIM
adoption, and raising awareness was seen as the ﬁrst step in addressing this issue
(Govender et al.,2018). Although IPD and BIM are mutually reinforcing, Holzer (2011) drew
attention to the use of IPD as a “buzzword”and as an excuse for BIM’s shortcomings, citing
this as one of the seven “deadly sins”of BIM uptake.
Two studies focused in particular on BIM adoption in small and medium-sized
enterprises. According to Li et al. (2019), lack of awareness of BIM is one of the barriers to
adoption, and IPD was identiﬁed as a key strategy in this context. Lam et al. (2017) referred
to IPD as a way for small and medium-sized enterprises to maximize beneﬁts and minimize
risks when adopting BIM.
Adoption of IPD and BIM is one of two clusters in which a majority of papers identify
IPD as enabling BIM adoption to overcome challenges (Salleh et al., 2019;Boon et al.,2019;
Piroozfar et al., 2019;Fakhimi et al.,2017) and increasing the chances of realizing BIM’s full
potential (Holzer, 2011).
3.2 Contractual models for project delivery
As well as the role of IPD in reinforcing BIM or vice versa, this category also includes
studies that compare different contractual models for project delivery in terms of their
coherence with BIM. The creation of a separate cluster for “contractual models for project
delivery”reﬂects these papers’more detailed discussion of project delivery forms and
These sources represent a different approach to BIM, in which even tough BIM was
commonly referred to as a process (Porwal and Hewage, 2013;Eadie et al.,2015;Franz et al.,
2017;Arifﬁnet al.,2018;Bahram, 2019). BIM was also discussed as a tool (Kim and Dossick,
2011;Zhang and Li, 2014;Salim and Mahjoob, 2020) or as a technology (Chen et al.,2020;
Zhang et al., 2020) in this context. Only Albano and Di Giuda (2018) characterized BIM as an
approach, focusing on relational contracting and how IPD can enhance BIM by aligning
with Italian legislation. Legislation and regulations were identiﬁed as the main source of
risk for BIM-based IPD projects, as few laws and regulations take account of collaborative
concepts (Chen et al.,2020).
Among the contractual models discussed and compared under this heading, Bahram
(2019) argues that alliance contracts afford greater collaboration through BIM, and Porwal
and Hewage (2013) propose a “BIM partnering”procurement framework to achieve “best
value.”Zhang and Li (2014) also compare IPD and project alliance, arguing that IPD is a
more advanced procurement model because it encourages early BIM adoption and facilitates
the implementation of a risk/reward model of compensation. Exploring the proliferation of
different project delivery forms and their alignment with BIM, Eadie et al. (2015) identify
design-build (DB), framework arrangements, design-bid-build and partnering as the UK’s
most common delivery forms, noting that BIM users are more comfortable with DB. In Salim
and Mahjoob’s (2020) study, 14% of respondents conﬁrmed that they used IPD, and a
majority of respondents acknowledged BIM’s coherence with IPD.
Finally, Kim and Dossick (2011),Franz et al. (2017) and Zhang et al. (2020) reviewed IPD
and BIM in terms of teamwork. According to Franz et al. (2017), team integration is the link
between project delivery method and performance, noting that while project delivery
method did not have a direct effect on performance measures, IPD has a signiﬁcant inﬂuence
on team integration, which leads in turn to better performance. Kim and Dossick (2011) and
Zhang et al. (2020) also emphasized IPD’s direct positive effect on teamwork effectiveness.
All asserted that BIM does not create integrated teams but reinforces project team
IPD and BIM
integration (Kim and Dossick, 2011;Franz et al.,2017;Zhang et al.,2020). While IPD and
BIM clearly affect teamwork, implementation of both concepts requires a degree of trust and
technological capability within the supply chain (Arifﬁnet al.,2018;Zhang et al.,2020). In
particular, Arifﬁnet al. (2018) found that IPD’s BIM focus poses challenges for project
managers and recommended that the construction industry should introduce IPD and BIM
gradually, with support from government agencies.
Most of these studies discuss the interplay of IPD and BIM in sequential terms in the
context of contractual models for project delivery and most characterize IPD as enabling
BIM rather than vice versa.
3.3 Cost management and ﬁnance
This category, which includes eight papers, is among the most widely studied themes in IPD
and BIM research. These papers focus predominantly on improving cost management and
proﬁt distribution and on combining various tools to achieve better ﬁnancial results. IPD
projects were seen to lack any accurate cost estimation methodology at the front-end of
projects (Elghaish et al., 2019) and fair proﬁt distribution (Teng et al.,2019) was identiﬁed as
the key weakness in IPD cost management (Elghaish and Abrishami, 2020a). Discussion of
IPD’s cost management deﬁciency invoked integration of several concepts (Elghaish et al.,
2020b). By way of defense, Love et al. (2017) argued that cost certainty improved when BIM
was coupled with IPD. However, this coupling alone cannot ensure more successful cost
management, and integrating BIM with earned value management (EVM), activity-based
costing (ABC) and blockchain technology were proposed as ways to improvecost estimation
and ease ﬁnancial transactions in IPD projects (Elghaish et al.,2019;Elghaish et al., 2020a).
In particular, EVM and ABC were seen to support risk/reward sharing in IPD (Elghaish
Additionally, Harrison and Thurnell (2015) conﬁrmed that IPD facilitates full
exploitation of 5 D BIM and Elghaish et al. (2019) noted that integrating ﬁve-dimensional
BIM with four-dimensional BIM supports optimal structuring of IPD’s direct, indirect and
overhead costs. Integration of BIM with blockchain technology was advocated as a means of
improving control and tracking of ﬁnancial transactions in IPD projects, so building trust
among the involved parties (Elghaish et al., 2020a). BIM-based IPD projects were also said to
perform well in relation to cost overruns, which are all too common in construction projects
(Love et al., 2017;Ma et al.,2017;Elghaish et al.,2019). Acknowledging that change orders
are a key reason for cost overruns, Ma et al. (2017) noted that BIM assists discovery of
change orders before the construction stage and that IPD is effective in eliminating change
orders. In conclusion, a majority of papers in this cluster viewed BIM as enabling IPD by
easing information processing and promoting trust and collaboration, especially when
juxtaposed with ABC, EVM and blockchain technology.
A majority of the papers reviewed here examined the sustainability of a particular project
life cycle stage; four focused on building design (García-Fuentes et al.,2019;Wong and Fan,
2013;Oduyemi et al.,2017;Cohen and Snell, 2018) while two pursued a more comprehensive
approach (Ma et al., 2018b;Bynum et al., 2013). All of these studies discuss IPD and BIM as a
sustainability tool or practice rather than as an evolving process. However, one study
(Bynum et al.,2013) reported that practitioners perceive BIM’s primary concerns as
coordination and visualization rather than sustainability. Overall, it is worth noting that all
of these studies agree that IPD and BIM contribute signiﬁcantly to sustainability either
through focusing on building design, procurement or overall.
Addressing the sustainable socio-cultural beneﬁts of IPD and BIM, Maskil-Leitan and
Reychav (2018) highlighted the importance of corporate social responsibility in BIM-enabled
IPD projects. One article described the implementation of a tool (OptEEmAL) developed to
improve the energy efﬁciency of the retroﬁtting design process (García-Fuentes et al.,2019).
The study also identiﬁed ﬁve pillars for the successful application of the tool, including IPD
Four of the seven studies in the sustainability category acknowledged BIM’s role as an
enabler for IPD rather than vice versa. According to Wong and Fan (2013) and Oduyemi
et al. (2017), IPD was “the beneﬁt”of using BIM for sustainable building design.
Studies classiﬁed under this heading discuss how technological aspects of IPD and BIM
facilitate early involvement through their ability to create intelligent input in early phases.
These features accelerate frontloading of the design stage, which is seen to enhance overall
productivity (Hiyama et al., 2014). In this context, BIM is seen as a modeling tool for
developing and enabling intelligent inputs (Goulding et al., 2014), with IPD as the eventual
goal of BIM (Götz et al., 2020;Keskin et al., 2020;Goulding et al.,2014). However, Monteiro
et al. (2014) noted that IPD was subject to change, both structurally and in terms of the
functionalities of supporting applications, raising the issue of full integration of graphic
(BIM) and written technical information as automated processes. From another perspective,
Isikdag (2012) noted that BIM goes beyond providing information management support for
IPD, as the BIM process continues even after demolition and supplies knowledge for future
Liu and Shiv (2017) reported that the KanBIM system increases the efﬁciency of quality
control and suggested that large and complex projects should adopt IPD to increase the
likelihood of success in this regard. A review of the literature on model-driven software
engineering in construction (Götz et al., 2020) foundthat BIM was a natural choice for model-
driven software engineering. In general, papers in this category come closest to a consensus
regarding the interplay of IPD and BIM and the vast majority of these scholars supported
the view that BIM is a key enabler for IPD or that IPD is the ultimate goal of BIM.
Two streams of research predominated in the “collaboration”cluster: developing
collaboration platforms and improving collaborative behavior among stakeholders. Three of
the studies (Alhava et al.,2015;Ma and Ma, 2017;Ma et al., 2018a) focused on developing the
collaboration platform. In their study of knowledge exchange for collaborative performance
assessment, Staykova and Underwood (2017) proposed a tool based on 20 characteristics of
knowledge exchange for use in BIM-based IPD projects where collaboration is among the
main goals. One study (Alhava et al., 2015) proposed the use of an “intensive big room”to
extend BIM beyond design to construction to facilitate IPD. They described this setup as a
combination of BIM, integrated concurrent engineering and big room approaches (Alhava
et al.,2015). Exploring the need to develop an alternative to BIM servers and the “high-
resource consuming”big room, Ma and Ma (2017) proposed a BIM-based collaboration
platform to promote IPD adoption.
The second main research stream in this category deals with behavioral issues. Mei et al.
(2017) showed that BIM-enabled IPD effectively reduces rent-seeking behavior. Du et al.
(2019) showed that the use of incentive payments and penalties was strongly negatively
correlated with hazard behavior as an underestimated failure factor for BIM applications in
IPD projects. The paper (Du et al.,2019) also noted that IPD and BIM were inseparable and
IPD and BIM
highly interdependent. In general, most of these sources viewed BIM as enhancing IPD,
either as a standalone tool or in combination with concepts like Big Room and integrated
3.7 Increasing the competence level of staﬀin the architecture, engineering and construction
The cluster of 6 studies in this category arguably indicates a pressing need to rethink AEC
education in this area. According to Solnosky et al. (2014), the AEC industry is generally
concerned that the current generation of professionals has limited knowledge of IPD and
BIM. On that basis, Jin et al. (2020) and Solnosky et al. (2014) argue that academia must
create appropriate pathways for the next generation of AEC professionals, adding to the
existing pressures on academia following drastic changes in the industry (Forgues and
However, MacDonald and Mills (2013) note that academia faces certain difﬁculties in
implementing proposals to integrate IPD and BIM in the AEC curriculum. In 2014, Penn
State University successfully implemented an IPD- and BIM-inﬂuenced capstone pilot
course to respond to industry needs (Solnosky et al., 2014). The pilot program was so
successful that it was repeated the following year (Solnosky et al., 2015). After ﬁve years
from Solnosky and his colleagues’(2014; 2015) studies, Jin et al. (2020) suggested the
“Constructivism Collaboration Process”for IPD and BIM collaboration education.
In this context, several (Solnosky et al., 2014,2015;Forgues and Becerik-Gerber, 2013;Jin
et al., 2020) stressed that BIM enhances the IPD project life cycle and facilitates IPD goals
and a more realistic IPD environment while IPD paves the way for more effective BIM
implementation. Together, according to MacDonald and Mills (2013), IPD and BIM promise
to improve construction project productivity.
3.8 Supply chain integration
The two main research streams in this category focused on supply chain partnership
(Papadonikolaki et al.,2016;Papadonikolaki and Wamelink, 2017;Hall et al.,2018) and off-
site construction (Li et al., 2017;Jin et al., 2018). In addition to IPD, “supply chain partnering”
was also acknowledged as a delivery arrangement (Papadonikolaki et al.,2016;
Papadonikolaki and Wamelink, 2017). Framed as a supply chain integration practice, BIM
was said to increase systematic innovation when applied in conjunction with IPD (Hall et al.,
2018), and one study reported that BIM-enabled supply chain partnering exhibited a distinct
pattern of collaboration (Papadonikolaki et al., 2016). According to Papadonikolaki and
Wamelink (2017), BIM-enabled supply chain partnering may emphasize transactions or
relations; the former is described as operational partnering and the latter as strategic
One study (Li et al., 2017) showed that IPD and BIM have a signiﬁcant impact on the
successful implementation of prefabrication. Based on a review of the off-site construction
literature for the period 2008–2018, Jin et al. (2018) conﬁrmed that more research is
warranted on the integration of IPD and BIM with off-site construction. More generally, a
majority of studies in this category acknowledged BIM’s role as an IPD enabler, and their
joint role in facilitating off-site construction and prefabrication was also highlighted.
3.9 Early integration
Studies of early integration related to either inclusion of the facilities management stage or
the construction stage into the design stage, focusing in particular on comprehensive design
decisions and resolving inter-stage fragmentation. IPD and BIM were viewed as catalysts
for process change in the AEC industry (Mayo and Issa, 2016). Even when not fully applied,
the IPD philosophy was seen to improve collaboration by involving later-stage
representatives earlier in the process (Pishdad-Bozorgi et al.,2018). When coupled with BIM,
this was seen to resolve fragmentation, as well as push designers (Olatunji and Akanmu,
2015) and owners (Mayo and Issa, 2016) to fulﬁll facilities management needs in the early
stages of projects. In terms of interplay, this is the only category in which neither BIM nor
IPD was characterized as the dominant enabler. Instead, they were seen to contribute jointly
to reduced fragmentation by encouraging designers to gather the necessary information
Scheduling is a primary theme with a mere four articles. Given the signiﬁcant incidence of
delays in the AEC industry, scheduling might be thought of as an under-researched area at
ﬁrst glance. Yet, the theme of scheduling was discussed within the theme of cost
management and ﬁnance as well (Harrison and Thurnell, 2015;Elghaish et al., 2019). Thus,
we did not classify scheduling as an under-research area.
Examining the synergistic effects of IPD, BIM and lean construction on schedule and
cost performance, Nguyen and Akhavian (2019) found that these have a greater impact on
the former. Sepasgozar et al. (2019) studied overlooked delaying factors in the AEC sector
and referred to IPD and BIM in relation to the “overlooked effect of digital technologies.”
Describing an ideal strategy for optimizing tools for IPD, Umar et al. (2015) highlighted the
importance of four-dimensional BIM. Elghaish and Abrishami (2020b) argued for the need to
improve four-dimensional BIM and suggested coupling it with ABC to support IPD
adoption. Two of the four studies in this category (Umar et al., 2015;Elghaish and
Abrishami, 2020b) referred to the interplay issue, characterizing BIM and especially four-
dimensional BIM, as an enabler for IPD in the context of scheduling.
Given the radical changes in the AEC industry, the theme of transformation was under-
represented, yielding only three articles. While two of these (Kraatz et al.,2014;Rowlinson,
2017) addressed industry-wide transformation, Gustavsson (2018) examined change in
terms of the liminal roles of partnering manager, building logistic specialist and BIM
coordinator. Both Kraatz et al. (2014) and Rowlinson (2017) suggested the creation of
government steering agencies to facilitate industrial transformation and implementation of
exemplar projects to promote IPD and BIM.
Rowlinson (2017) and Kraatz et al. (2014) discussed the interplay of IPD and BIM, but
Gustavsson’s (2018) position was unclear, as the paper discussed related roles but did not
deal with IPD and BIM at a conceptual level. While Rowlinson (2017) was clear that BIM
merely enables IPD, Kraatz et al. (2014) characterized the interplay as reciprocal and related
the effects to industry transformation, noting that IPD leverages BIM while IPD is the ﬁnal
stage and ultimate goal of BIM.
In attempting to deepen the existing understanding of IPD and BIM and their interplay, the
present study makes two main contributions. First, the state of IPD and BIM research was
elucidated, using SLR to cluster relevant papers from the extant IPD and BIM literature
around 11 overlapping but distinct themes: adoption of IPD and BIM, contractual models for
project delivery, cost management and ﬁnance, sustainability, technology, collaboration,
increasing the competence level of staff in the AEC industry, supply chain integration, early
IPD and BIM
integration, scheduling and transformation. Furthermore, meta-level analysis of the themes
was carried out for the sake of advanced value creation in construction projects (Figure 2)
and areas of improvement were spotted. Second, we explored the interplay of IPD and BIM
more fully than previous SLR studies that treated these as standalone concepts (Yalcinkaya
and Singh, 2015;Oraee et al.,2017) by including both IPD and BIM as focal elements of the
As shown in Table 1, the most extensively studied research themes were adoption of IPD
and BIM, contractual models for project delivery, cost management and ﬁnance,
sustainability and technology. As well as IPD, we discussed features of other collaborative
delivery forms like project alliances under contractual models for project delivery category.
We found that many studies compared collaborative delivery forms with partially
collaborative forms like DB and traditional delivery forms in terms of their alignment with
BIM. Overall, we can conclude that IPD’s focus on BIM ensures clear advantages over other
project delivery forms in terms of coherence.
Beyond their role as collaborative methods, IPD and BIM were discussed as sustainable
(Oduyemi et al.,2017) and technological (Götz et al., 2020;Isikdag, 2012) methods,
highlighting theirmultidimensionality. Most of the reviewed studies advocated the coupling
of IPD and BIM; additionally, some referred to the need to incorporate complementary
methods such as ABC, EVM and target value design to enhance cost management
performance. Another extensively discussed theme was adoption of IPD and BIM.
Academic dissatisfaction with industry adoption of IPD and BIM focused on the associated
barriers and complexities, which seem likely to remain a hot topic for the foreseeable future.
Our review identiﬁed a signiﬁcant number of good studies highlighting the neglect of
emerging concepts like IPD and BIM in the AEC curriculum (Forgues and Becerik-Gerber,
2013;Solnosky et al., 2014,2015), as reﬂected in the limited knowledge of these approaches
among current practitioners. The themes of early integration and supply chain integration
were also discussed in relation to the longstanding issue of construction project
fragmentation (Fellows and Liu, 2012), which has clearly preoccupied researchers over the
last decade. Because they prioritize early involvement, IPD and BIM have been identiﬁed as
effective solutions to the challenges of fragmentation (Nawi et al.,2014;Pishdad-Bozorgi
et al., 2018). In particular, IPD and BIM were seen to counter designers’supposed hegemony
in the early design phase by requiring them to involve contractors and facility managers in
design decisions. The discussion of integration in this context extends beyond the design
phase all the way back to the supply chain. Li et al. (2017) and Jin et al. (2018) linked IPD and
BIM to the themes of prefabrication and off-site construction, and Papadonikolaki et al.
(2016) recommended BIM-oriented supply chain partnerships.
Among the smaller clusters, it seems clear that more research is needed on the theme
of transformation. Although the AEC sector is lagging behind other sectors in productivity
terms and is under pressure to change, surprisingly few studies emphasized the issue
of transformation in the context of IPD and BIM. We contend that a structured process of
transformation can shift the prevailing traditional paradigm to IPD- and BIM-enabled
collaborative projects. The theme of scheduling, as a primary theme, involves a limited
number of papers in IPD and BIM research, especially considering the fact that delays are
such a common feature of construction projects (Sepasgozar et al.,2019). Yet, scheduling is
highly connected to cost and discussed extensive enough in the cluster of cost management
and ﬁnance as a secondary focus (Harrison and Thurnell, 2015;Elghaish et al., 2019), thus
we did not include scheduling to the group of themes that need more research in this study.
Based on the systematic analysis of the recent literature, this study indicates that IPD
and BIM have several joint fundamental cornerstones. It is also evident that IPD and BIM
support the implementation of each other. Furthermore, the success of either one is strongly
related to the other. However, this relation does not mean that they cannot be implemented
without another. For instance, BIM can be implemented without collaboration, merely as a
tool of transferring data and design speciﬁcations, yet this study conﬁrms that its full
potential will not be exploited without integrated delivery models. Conformably, IPD can be
implemented without BIM, however, collaboration in BIM results in better performance in
AEC projects. Individual implementation of IPD or BIM results in only partial beneﬁts. In a
nutshell, synchronous implementation of IPD and BIM advances value creation through the
concepts that have been presented in Figure 2. The themes and their relation toward
advanced value creation presented in Figure 2 emerged from the synthesis of the analysis of
IPD and BIM interplay in the recent literature.
Beyond the identiﬁed themes being interrelated and overlapping, we recognized the
upstream root-cause relationship for advanced value creation of construction projects
(Figure 2), which will be a signiﬁcant area of further research and efﬁciency improvement at
a practical level. One of the main practical beneﬁts of IPD and BIM is shifting focus from
parts to the entity. AEC projects have been suffering from fragmentation severely (Nawi
et al.,2014;Pishdad-Bozorgi et al.,2018), while the practical implication of this contribution
generates focus to the ﬁnal cause, namely, advanced value creation, instead of
suboptimization. One very fruitful avenue for this has been turning the revenue logic of
suppliers depending on the quality of ﬁnal end-result (Hietajärvi et al.,2017). Comparably, as
a theoretical implication, the former requires research on a more detailed root-cause
relationship how and through which logic value creation will be improved. The earlier the
mechanism starts to work the better the end-result will be, as can been from Figure 2 as well.
Synthesis of the
analysis of IPD and
BIM interplay in the
IPD and BIM
Value creation is often measured by key performance indicators (KPI) (Moradi et al.,2021).
The themes of cost management and ﬁnance, sustainability and scheduling are directly
connected to advanced value creation in the context of IPD and BIM and are classiﬁed as
KPIs. Even though project performance can be measured by different combinations of KPIs
(Moradi et al., 2021), one of the most accepted bundles consists of cost, time and quality,
namely the “iron triangle”(Walker and Rowlinson, 2020b). Even though scheduling consists
of a limited number of articles, the theme was discussed in the cost management and ﬁnance
cluster as well (Harrison and Thurnell, 2015;Elghaish et al.,2019) because time and cost are
inseparable KPIs for construction projects (Nguyen and Akhavian, 2019).
We found a mere one article wherein quality was one of the main focal concepts (Liu and
Shiv, 2017), thus more research is called for IPD and BIM’s relation to project quality which
is one of the three pillars of the “iron triangle”. Sustainability has been associated with
project performance and has often been discussed as KPI especially in recent years (Silvius
and Schipper, 2016). The sustainability theme involves a considerable number of articles in
the context of IPD and BIM, still, this theme is identiﬁed as an area of improvement
considering the growing attention of the AEC industry. We believe that what IPD and BIM
can offer for sustainability and how IPD and BIM can be improved in terms of sustainability
require more exploration.
Collaboration, particularly between key stakeholders, plays a vital role in improved KPIs
in construction projects (Staykova and Underwood, 2017). We found that the technological
maturity of construction projects has a high potential to facilitate early collaboration and
connectivity between major stakeholders, supported by an integrated supply chain and
early integration of later construction phases. While technological infrastructure paves the
way for team collaboration and integrated process in construction projects (Goulding et al.,
2014;Papadonikolaki and Wamelink, 2017), supply chain integration practices intend to
organize information, process people and/or ﬁrms for the purpose of collaboration among
the whole supply chain (Hall et al., 2018). Thus, an integrated supply chain expresses a clear
vision for collaboration (Papadonikolaki et al.,2016). Early integration of later phases, such
as facilities management, to the design phase increases collaboration from the very
beginning (Pishdad-Bozorgi et al., 2018). In this way, early amendments are aimed to be used
throughout the project time span and risks and opportunities are aimed to be managed from
the outset of construction projects.
When advanced value creation is aimed to be achieved through collaboration, IPD’s
stress on the integrated process and BIM as a process and technology make IPD an obvious
choice among other project delivery forms in our sample (Zhang and Li, 2014). However, the
beneﬁts of IPD and BIM come with preconditions in both industrial and organizational
levels (Govender et al.,2018) that led researchers to search for ways to overcome barriers to
adopting IPD and BIM. Despite the paradigm shift from traditional project environment to
collaborative construction project management, the theme of transformation did not receive
enough attention from IPD and BIM researchers in the last decade.
We believe that paradigm shift requires a systematic framework steered by
governmental agencies and stakeholders of the AEC industry should be encouraged to
adopt IPD and BIM and collaborate at a higher level. Yet, the transformation can be
proceeded by only competent staff, thus numerous studies strive to ﬁnd ways to increase the
competence level of staff in the AEC industry that reveals the current low level of
competence. However, because of the critical position of the theme and one-dimensional
discussion, we defend that different aspects of increasing the level of competence of staff
should be discussed. Overall, we believe there is a need formore research in transformation,
sustainability, increasing the competence level of staff in the AEC industry and quality. We
call for more research in creating new collaboration-centered roles in the AEC industry.
Additionally, we found numerous articles that strive to improve the curriculum in AEC
education in terms of collaboration (Jin et al.,2020;MacDonald and Mills, 2013;Solnosky
et al.,2014,2015;Forgues and Becerik-Gerber, 2013), which is crucial to increase the
competence level of staff for future. However, we as researchers explicitly need to ﬁnd ways
to increase the competence level of the current staff as well because the transformation
process cannot exclude them, at least in near future.
As mentioned earlier, the other main objective of the present study was to explore
the interplay between IPD and BIM. In this regard, insights from existing studies
clearly depended on the researchers’perspective. Existing scholarly inconsistency on
BIM description (Kymmell, 2008;Zuppa et al., 2009;Turk, 2016;Hardin and McCool,
2015) continues in our sample papers as well. Studies that treated IPD and BIM
separately tended to view BIM as a tool (Kim and Dossick, 2011;Zhang and Li, 2014;
Salim and Mahjoob, 2020), a technology (Chen et al., 2020;Zhang et al., 2020), a process
(Porwal and Hewage, 2013;Eadie et al., 2015;Franz et al., 2017;Arifﬁnet al., 2018;
Bahram, 2019)oranapproach(Albano and Di Giuda, 2018), while IPD was discussed
mainly as a method (Keskin et al., 2020;Bynum et al., 2013), a practice (Ma et al., 2018b),
an approach (Salim and Mahjoob, 2020), a process (Isikdag, 2012)oramindset
(Pishdad-Bozorgi et al., 2018;Holzer, 2011).
We identiﬁed four types of the interplay between IPD and BIM in the 71 papers in our
sample. A majority (48) discussed this interplay as sequential, with either IPD or BIM
playing the role of enabler. Of these, 30 papers clearly stated that BIM enables IPD while 18
advanced the reverse view. A further 12 papers did not address the relationship between
IPD and BIM but focused instead on their effects on independent variables –in other words,
this type of interplay could be characterized as pooled. In ten studies, IPD and BIM were
seen to enable each other. Additionally, six of these ten papers stressed the joint role of IPD
and BIM as enablers for another independent variable and these papers were classiﬁed as
reciprocal and pooled interplay, while the rest of the papers (4) are classiﬁed as reciprocal
but not pooled because IPD and BIM were defended to enable each other but their enabling
role for the independent variable was not mentioned.
Secondly, accounts of the interplay between IPD and BIM varied by theme. For instance,
while the dominant argument in adoption of IPD and BIM and contractual models for
project delivery is that IPD enables BIM, the dominant view in cost management and
ﬁnance, sustainability, technology, increasing the competence level of staff in the AEC
industry, supply chain integration and scheduling is that BIM enables IPD. Only one
category (early integration) emphasizes pooled interplay, IPD and BIM enabling an
independent variable. The limited number of studies in the transformation category varied
in their approach to the issue of interplay. In one case (Gustavsson, 2018), the author’s
position was unclear; Rowlinson (2017) was in no doubt that BIM enables IPD and Kraatz
et al. (2014) adopted the pooled and reciprocal approach, wherein IPD and BIM enable each
other and they also enable an independent variable jointly.
While some studies questioned the direct impact of IPD and BIM on performance
indicators, it was generally agreed that coupling BIM and IPD (and in some cases, other
complementary methods) undoubtedly inﬂuences trust, early involvement, team integration
and collaboration, paving the way for improved performance. However, as trust was
regarded as a precondition for IPD and BIM implementation, this may be a vicious circle.
In summary, the AEC industry is clearly undergoing a paradigm shift from traditional
modes toward more collaborative, sustainable, technological models like IPD and BIM and
both academics and practitioners are aware of this change. Second, as the construction
IPD and BIM
industry is constrained by legislation and public sector agendas, it is reasonable to infer that
awareness and implementation of IPD and BIM vary from country to country. IPD in
particular is complex and preconditions may take years to fulﬁll. For that reason, some
researchers view IPD with suspicion and focus instead on delivery forms like DB, which are
easier to implement.
This review of the recent literature extracted and analyzed differing perspectives on the
interplay of IPD and BIM. While our ﬁndings conﬁrm the absence of consensus on this
issue (Rowlinson, 2017;Piroozfar et al., 2019;Sepasgozar et al., 2019;Du et al., 2019;
Azhar, 2011), it seems clear that IPD and BIM facilitate and complement each other. Our
analysis indicates that project owner initiatives to promote collaborative behavior are
preferable to random emergence (Govender et al.,2018) while also acknowledging that
attitudes to collaboration are inﬂuenced by national legislation and public agencies’
While project owners play a key role in the transition to a more collaborative
approach, collaborative concepts must be established and validated, as construction
organizations necessarily respond to known demands. This vicious circle can only be
broken if the industry learns to exploit the full potential of IPD and BIM and as a
number of studies have shown, that will depend on increasing the competence level of
staff in the AEC industry.
In addressing system-level issues, the present study paves the way for further detailed
research on the interplay of IPD and BIM. We aim to enhance the body of knowledge via two
main contributions: First, we identiﬁed 11 overlapping themes in the recent literature of IPD
and BIM (see Table 1), including a discussion of the relation of the themes (Figure 2). The
identiﬁed themes highlight trends and future spaces that more fully comprehend the nature
of IPD and BIM and appropriate research frames. Based on the 11 themes identiﬁed here,
future researchers can select relevant clusters for further analysis. Among the identiﬁed
themes, we deduce that the themes of sustainability, transformation and increasing the
competence level of staff in the AEC industry require more attention from IPD and BIM
researchers. Additionally, we also conﬁrm that future studies should focus on IPD and
BIM’s relation to the concept of project quality, which received very limited attention from
IPD and BIM researchers even though it is one of the most accepted KPIs (Moradi et al.,
2021). Quantitative methods should also be used to further illuminate the interplay of IPD
and BIM in developing a systematic framework to guide the AEC industry adoption of a
This study inevitably has a number of limitations. First, it includes only publications in
English. Second, the dependence on abstracts, titles and keywords in search excludes papers
that discuss IPD and BIM only within the text. Third, the choice of search terms may have
excluded some relevant studies; for instance, we used the term “BIM”but not “virtual design
and construction”or “building product model.”Fourth, we included only articles or review
papers while excluding conference papers and book chapters. Additionally, some papers
identiﬁed in our ﬁrst search were excluded because the discussion of the target concepts was
found to be too limited. In this regard, exclusions were determined by more than one
researcher to guard against subjective bias. Finally, it must be noted that clusters that
returned more papers were the most popular in the existing literature rather than
necessarily the most important.
Aapaoja, A., Herrala, M., Pekuri, A. and Haapasalo, H. (2013), “The characteristics of and cornerstones
for creating integrated teams”,International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 6
No. 4, pp. 695-713.
AIA (2007), “Integrated project delivery: a guide”,The American Institute of Architects, available at:
https://info.aia.org/SiteObjects/ﬁles/IPD_Guide_2007.pdf (accessed 27 October 2021).
AIA (2010), “Integrated project delivery: Case studies”,The American Institute of Architects, available
at: www.ipda.ca/site/assets/ﬁles/1111/aia-2010-ipd-case-studies.pdf (accessed 27 October 2021).
Albano, G.L. and Di Giuda, G.M. (2018), “Framework agreement and collaborative procurement in
italian legislation enhancing a BIM approach”,Bo-Ricerche E Progetti per Il Terrritorio La Citta
E L Architettura, Vol. 9 No. 13, pp. 176-183.
Alhava, O., Laine, E. and Kiviniemi, A. (2015), “Intensive big room process for co-creating value in
legacy construction projects”,Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon),
Special Issue: ECPPM 2014, Vol. 20, pp. 146-158.
Arifﬁn, H.L.T., Raslim, F.M., Mustaffa, N.E., Rahiman, N.A. and Chun, K.C. (2018), “The factors
concerning procurement selection for building information modeling (BIM) based project”,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 1706-1714.
Azhar, S. (2011), “Building information modeling (BIM): trends, beneﬁts, risks, and challenges for the
AEC industry”,Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 241-252.
Azhar, S., Khalfan, M. and Maqsood, T. (2012), “Building information modeling (BIM): now and
beyond”,Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 15-28.
Bahram, D. (2019), “Brieﬁng: Can alliance contracts provide a delivery platform for greater
collaboration with building information modelling?”,Proceedings of Institution of Civil
Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, Vol. 172 No. 6, pp. 227-231.
Bilge, E.C. and Yaman, H. (2021), “Information management roles in real estate development lifecycle:
literature review on BIM and IPD framework”,Construction Innovation, Vol. 21 No. 4,
Boon, L.H., Saar, C.C., Lau, S.E.N., Aminudin, E., Zakaria, R., Hamid, A.R.A., Sarbini, N.N. and Zin, R.M.
(2019), “Building information modelling integrated project delivery system in Malaysia”,
Malaysian Construction Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 144-152.
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. and Volm, J.M. (2013), “The project beneﬁts of building information modelling
(BIM)”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 971-980.
Bynum, P., Issa, R.R.A. and Olbina, S. (2013), “Building information modeling in support of sustainable
design and construction”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139 No. 1,
Chang, C.Y., Pan, W. and Howard, R. (2017), “Impact of building information modeling implementation
on the acceptance of integrated delivery systems: structural equation modeling analysis”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 8, p. 4017044.
Chen, W., Wang, J. and Wang, C. (2020), “Study of risk evaluation for complex projects under BIM and
IPD collaborative pattern based on neighborhood rough sets”,Tehnicki Vjesnik, Vol. 27 No. 2,
Chidambaram, S. (2019), “Application of building information modelling for reinforcement waste
minimisation”,Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –Waste and Resource
Management, Vol. 172 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Cohen, A. and Snell, C. (2018), “Delivering sustainable buildings at market rate”,Architectural Design,
Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 110-115.
Cook, D.J., Mulrow, C.D. and Haynes, R.B. (1997), “Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for
clinical decisions”,Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 126 No. 5, pp. 376-380.
IPD and BIM
Cox, T., Kenig, M., Allison, M., Kelley, S.W. and Stark, M. (2016), “Primer on project delivery”,
American Institute of Architects (AIA), Washington, DC.
Davies, A. and Mackenzie, I. (2014), “Project complexity and systems integration: constructing the
london 2012 olympics and paralympics games”,International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 773-790.
Du, Y., Zhou, H., Yuan, Y. and Xue, H. (2019), “Exploring the moral hazardevolutionary mechanism for
BIM implementation in an integrated project team”,Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 20, pp. 1-28.
Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C. and McNiff, S. (2015), “A survey of current status of
and perceived changes required for BIM adoption in the UK”,Built Environment Project and
Asset Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K. (2008), BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building
Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractor, 2nd ed.,
John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Elghaish, F. and Abrishami, S. (2020a), “A centralised cost management system: exploiting EVM and
ABC within IPD”,Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
Elghaish, F., Abrishami, S., Hosseini, M.R., Abu-Samra, S. and Gaterell, M. (2019), “Integrated project
delivery with BIM: an automated EVM-based approach”,Automation in Construction, Vol. 106,
Elghaish, F. and Abrishami, S. (2020b), “Developing a framework to revolutionise the 4D BIM process:
IPD-based solution”,Construction Innovation, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp.401-420.
Elghaish, F., Abrishami, S. and Hosseini, M.R. (2020a), “Integrated project delivery with blockchain: an
automated ﬁnancial system”,Automation in Construction, Vol. 114, pp. 1-16.
Elghaish, F., Hosseini, M.R., Talebi, S., Abrishami, S., Martek, I. and Kagioglou, M. (2020b), “Factors
driving success of cost management practices in integrated project delivery (IPD)”,
Sustainability,Vol. 12 No. 22,pp. 1-14.
Fakhimi, A., Majrouhi Sardrood, J., Mazroi, A., Ghoreishi, S.R. and Azhar, S. (2017), “Inﬂuences of
building information modeling (BIM) on oil, gas, and petrochemical ﬁrms”,Science and
Technology for the Built Environment, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1063-1077.
Fellows, R. and Liu, A.M.M. (2012), “Managing organizational interfaces in engineering construction
projects: addressing fragmentation and boundary issues across multiple interfaces”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 653-671.
Forgues, D. and Becerik-Gerber, B. (2013), “Integrated project delivery and building information
modeling: redeﬁningthe relationship between education and practice”,The International Journal
of Design Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 47-56.
Franz, B., Leicht, R., Molenaar, K. and Messner, J. (2017), “Impact of team integration and group
cohesion on project delivery performance”,Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
García-Fuentes, M.Á., Alvarez, S., Serna, V., Pousse, M. and Meiss, A. (2019), “Integration of
prioritisation criteria in the design of energy efﬁcient retroﬁtting projects at district scale:a case
study”,Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 14, pp. 1-23.
Götz, S., Fehn, A., Rohde, F. and Kühn, T. (2020), “Model-driven software engineering for construction
engineering: quo vadis?”,Journal of Object Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 1-22.
Goulding, J.S., Rahimian, F.P. and Wang, X. (2014), “Virtual reality-based cloud BIM platform for
integrated AEC projects”,Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 19,
Govender, K., Nyagwachi, J., Smallwood, J.J. and Allen, C.J. (2018), “The awareness of integrated project
delivery and building information modelling –facilitating construction projects”,International
Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Vol. 13 No.1, pp. 121-129.
Gustavsson, T.K. (2018), “Liminal roles in construction project practice: exploring change through the
roles of partnering manager, building logistic specialist and BIM coordinator”,Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 599-610.
Hall, D.M., Algiers,A. and Levitt, R.E. (2018), “Identifying the role of supply chain integration practices
in the adoption of systemic innovations”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 34 No. 6,
Halttula, H., Aapaoja, A. and Haapasalo, H. (2015), “The contemporaneous use of building information
modeling and relational project delivery arrangements”,Procedia Economics and Finance,
Vol. 21, pp. 532-539.
Hardin, B. and McCool, D. (2015), BIM and Construction Management: proven Tools, Methods, and
Workﬂows, John Wiley and Sons.
Harrison, C. and Thurnell, D. (2015), “BIM implementation in a New Zealand consulting quantity
surveying practice”,International Journal of Construction Supply Chain Management, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Hietajärvi, A.-M., Aaltonen, K. and Haapasalo, H. (2017), “Managing integration in infrastructure
alliance projects dynamics of integration mechanisms”,International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-31.
Hiyama, K., Kato, S., Kubota, M. and Zhang, J. (2014), “A new method for reusing building information
models of past projects to optimize the default conﬁguration for performance simulations”,
Energy and Buildings, Vol. 73, pp. 83-91.
Holzer, D. (2011), “BIM’s seven deadly sins”,International Journal of Architectural Computing, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 463-479.
Isikdag, U. (2012), “Design patterns for BIM-based service-oriented architectures”,Automation in
Construction, Vol. 25, pp. 59-71.
Jin, R.Y., Gao, S., Cheshmehzangi, A. and Aboagye-Nimo, E. (2018), “A holistic review of off-site
construction literature published between 2008 and 2018”,Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 202, pp. 1202-1219.
Jin, J., Hwang, K.-E. and Kim, I. (2020), “A study on the constructivism learning method for BIM/IPD
collaboration education”,Applied Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 15, pp. 1-25.
Kent, D.C. and Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010), “Understanding construction industry experience and
attitudes toward integrated project delivery”,Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 136 No. 8, pp. 815-825.
Keskin, B., Salman, B. and Ozorhon, B. (2020), “Airport project delivery within BIM-centric construction
technology ecosystems”,Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 530-548.
Khalfan, M.M.A. and McDermot, P. (2006), “Innovating for supply chain integration within
construction”,Construction Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 143-157.
Kim, Y.-W. and Dossick, C.S. (2011), “What makes the delivery of a project integrated? A case study of
children’s hospital, bellevue, WA”,Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 2011, pp. 53-66.
Kitchenham, B. (2004), Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews, Vol. 33, Keele University, Keele.
Kraatz, J.A., Sanchez, A.X. and Hampson, K.D. (2014), “Digital modeling, integrated project
delivery and industry transformation: an australian case study”,Buildings,Vol.4No.3,
Kymmell, W. (2008), Building Information Modeling –Planning and Managing Construction Projects
with 4D CAD and Simulation, McGraw-Hill Construction, New York, NY.
Lahdenperä, P. (2012), “Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project
partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery”,Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 57-79.
IPD and BIM
Lam, T.T., Mahdjoubi, L. and Mason, J. (2017), “A framework to assist in the analysis of risks and
rewards of adopting BIM for SMEs in the UK”,Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,
Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 740-752.
Li, P., Zheng, S., Si, H. and Xu, K. (2019), “Critical challenges for BIM adoption in small and medium-
sized enterprises: evidence from China”,Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2019, pp. 1-14.
Li, X., Li, Z. and Wu, G. (2017), “Modular and offsite construction of piping: current barriers and route”,
Applied Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 1-16.
Liu, J. and Shiv, G. (2017), “Quality control of a complex lean construction project based on KanBIM
technology”,Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Vol. 13 No. 8,
Love, P.E.D., Zhou, J., Edwards, D.J., Irani, Z. and Sing, C.-P. (2017), “Off the rails: the cost performance
of infrastructure rail projects”,Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 99,
MacDonald, J. and Mills, J. (2013), “An IPD approach to construction education”,Construction
Economics and Building, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 93-103.
Ma, L., Le, Y., Li, H., Jin, R., Piroozfar, P. and Liu, M. (2018b), “Regional comparisons of contemporary
construction industry sustainable concepts in the chinese context”,Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 11,
Ma, Z. and Ma, J. (2017), “Formulating the application functional requirements of a BIM-based
collaboration platform to support IPD projects”,KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 21
No. 6, pp. 2011-2026.
Ma, J., Ma, Z. and Li, J. (2017), “An IPD-based incentive mechanism to eliminate change orders in
construction projects in China”,KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 2538-2550.
Maskil-Leitan, R. and Reychav, I. (2018), “A sustainable sociocultural combination of building
information modeling with integrated project delivery in a social network perspective”,Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 20No. 5, pp. 1017-1032.
Mayo, G. and Issa, R.R.A. (2016), “Nongeometric building information needs assessment for facilities
management”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Ma, Z., Zhang, D. and Li, J. (2018a), “A dedicated collaboration platform for integrated project delivery”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 86, pp. 199-209.
Mansoori, S. and Haapasalo, H. (2019), “Releasing the Unhidden Potential of BIM”, in Shakeri, E. and
Azizi, M. (Eds), 2nd International Conference on Building Information Modeling, Civilica,
Mei, T., Wang, Q., Xiao, Y. and Yang, M. (2017), “Rent-seeking behavior of BIM- and IPD-based
construction project in China”,Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 514-536.
Mesa, H.A., Molenaar, K.R. and Luis, F.A. (2019), “Comparative analysis between integrated project
delivery and lean project delivery”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37 No. 3,
Mihic, M., Sertic, J. and Zavrski, I. (2014), “Integrated project delivery as integration between solution
development and solution implementation”,Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119,
Monteiro, A., Mêda, P. and Poças Martins, J. (2014), “Framework for the coordinated application of two
different integrated project delivery platforms”,Automation in Construction, Vol. 38, pp. 87-99.
Moradi, S., Ansari, R. and Taherkhani, R.A. (2021), “Systematic analysis of construction performance
management: key performance indicators from 2000 to 2020”,Iranian Journal of Science and
Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, (Forthcoming), Vol. 46No. 1, doi: 10.1007/s40996-
Morris, P.W.G. (2013), Reconstructing Project Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
Morwood, R., Scott, D. and Pitcher, I. (2008), Alliancing: a Participant’s Guide, Maunsell AECOM,
Mulrow, C.D. (1994), “Systematic reviews –rationale for systematic reviews”,BMJ, Vol. 309 No. 6954,
Nawi, M.N.M., Haron, A.T., Hamid, Z.A., Kamar, K.A.M. and Baharuddin, Y. (2014), “Improving
integrated practice through building information modeling-integrated project delivery (BIM-
IPD) for malaysian industrialised building system (IBS) construction projects”,Malaysian
Construction Research Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 29-38.
Nguyen, P. and Akhavian, R. (2019), “Synergistic effect of integrated project delivery, lean construction,
and building information modeling on project performance measures: a quantitative and
qualitative analysis”,Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2019, pp. 1-9.
Oduyemi, O., Okoroh,M.I. and Fajana, O.S. (2017), “The application and barriers of BIM in sustainable
building design”,Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 15-34.
Olatunji, O.A. and Akanmu, A. (2015), “BIM-FM and consequential loss: how consequential can design
models be?”,Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 304-317.
Oraee, M., Hosseini, M.R., Papadonikolaki, E., Palliyaguru, R. and Arashpour, M. (2017), “Collaboration
in BIM-based construction networks: a bibliometric-qualitative literature review”,International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1288-1301.
Papadonikolaki, E., Vrijhoef, R. and Wamelink, H. (2016), “The interdependences of BIM and supply
chain partnering: empirical explorations”,Architectural Engineering and Design Management,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 476-494.
Papadonikolaki, E. and Wamelink, H. (2017), “Inter- and intra-organizational conditions for
supply chain integration with BIM”,Building Research and Information, Vol. 45 No. 6,
Pilbeam, C. (2013), “Coordinating temporary organizations in international development through social
and temporal embeddedness”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
Piroozfar, P., Farr, E.R.P., Zadeh, A.H.M., Timoteo Inacio, S., Kilgallon, S. and Jin, R. (2019),
“Facilitating building information modelling (BIM) using integrated project delivery (IPD): a UK
perspective”,Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 26, pp. 1-11.
Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., Gao, X., Eastman, C. and Self, A.P. (2018), “Planning and developing facility
management-enabled building information model (FM-enabled BIM)”,Automation in
Construction, Vol. 87, pp. 22-38.
Porwal, A. and Hewage, K.N. (2013), “Building information modeling (BIM) partnering framework for
public construction projects”,Automation in Construction, Vol. 31, pp. 204-214.
Rowlinson, S. (2017), “Building information modelling, integrated project delivery and all that”,
Construction Innovation, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-49.
Sacks, R., Korb, S. and Barak, R. (2018), Building Lean, Building BIM: Improving Construction the
Tidhar Way, Routledge, Baton Rouge.
Sakal, M. (2005), “Project alliancing: a relational contracting mechanism for dynamic projects”,Lean
Construction Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 67-79.
Salim, M.S. and Mahjoob, A.M.R. (2020), “Integrated project delivery (IPD) method with BIM to
improve the project performance: a case study in the republic of Iraq”,Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol.21 No. 6, pp. 947-957.
Salleh, R.M., Mustaffa, N.E., Rahiman, N.A., Arifﬁn, H.L.T. and Othman, N. (2019), “The propensity
of building information modelling and integrated project delivery in building construction
project”,International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability,Vol.6Nos1/2,
IPD and BIM
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, (5th ed.),
Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Sepasgozar, S.M.E., Karimi, R., Shirowzhan, S., Mojtahedi, M., Ebrahimzadeh, S. and McCarthy, D.
(2019), “Delay causes and emerging digital tools: a novel model of delay analysis, including
integrated project delivery and PMBOK”,Buildings, Vol. 9 No. 9, pp. 1-37.
Silvius, A.J.G. and Schipper, R. (2016), “Exploring the relationship between sustainability and project
success –conceptual model and expected relationships”,International Journal of Information
Systems and Project Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 5-22.
Solnosky, R., Parﬁtt, M.K. and Holland, R. (2015), “Delivery methods for a multi-disciplinary
architectural engineering capstone design course”,Architectural Engineering and Design
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 305-324.
Solnosky, R., Parﬁtt, M.K. and Holland, R.J. (2014), “IPD and BIM-focused capstone course based on
AEC industry needs and involvement”,Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
and Practice, Vol. 140 No. 4, pp. 1-11.
Staykova, G. and Underwood, J. (2017), “Assessing collaborative performance on construction projects
through knowledge exchange: a UK rail strategic alliance case study”,Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 968-987.
Stride, M., Hon, C.K.H., Liu, R. and Xia, B. (2020), “The use of building information modelling by
quantity surveyors in facilities management roles”,Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1795-1812.
Teng, Y., Li, X., Wu, P. and Wang, X. (2019), “Using cooperative game theory to determine proﬁt
distribution in IPD projects”,International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 19 No. 1,
Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory,
Transaction Publishers, New York, NY.
Tranﬁeld, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”,British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Turk, Z. (2016), “Ten questions concerning building information modelling”,Building and
Environment, Vol. 107, pp. 274-284.
Umar, U.A., Shaﬁq, N., Malakahmad, A., Nuruddin, M.F., Khamidi, M.F., Farhan, S.A. and Gardezi, S.S.S.
(2015), “4D BIM application in AEC industry: impact on integrated project delivery”,Research
Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 547-552.
Walker, D.H.T. and Lloyd-Walker, B.M. (2015), Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements,
Newtown Square, Project Management Institute.
Walker, D. and Rowlinson, S. (2020a), “The global state of play of IPD”, in Walker, D., Rowlinson, S.
(Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 41-66.
Walker, D. and Rowlinson, S. (2020b), “IPD performance and incentive management”, in Walker, D. and
Rowlinson, S. (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery, Routledge,
Abingdon, pp. 557-580.
Watson, A. (2011), “Digital buildings –challenges and opportunities”,Advanced Engineering
Informatics, Vol. 25 No.4, pp. 573-581.
Wong, K.-D. and Fan, Q. (2013), “Building information modelling (BIM) for sustainable building
design”,Facilities, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4, pp. 138-157.
Yalcinkaya, M. and Singh, V. (2015), “Patterns and trends in building information modeling (BIM)
research: a latent semantic analysis”,Automation in Construction, Vol. 59, pp. 68-80.
Zhang, L., Huang, S., Tian, C. and Guo, H. (2020), “How do relational contracting norms affect IPD
teamwork effectiveness? A social Capital perspective”,Project Management Journal, Vol. 51
No. 5, pp. 538-555.
Zhang, L. and Li, F. (2014), “Risk/reward compensation model for integrated project delivery”,
Engineering Economics, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 558-567.
Zuppa, D., Issa, R.R. and Suermann, P.C. (2009), “BIM’s impacton the success measures of construction
projects”, in Caldes, C.H. and O’Brien, W.J. (Eds), ASCE International Workshop on Computing
in Civil Engineering, Reston, VA, pp. 503-512.
Lancaster, G. (2005), Research Methods in Management, Elsevier, Burlington.
Lang, S., Dickinson, J. and Buchal, R. (2002), “Cognitive factors in distributed design”,Computers in
Industry, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 89-98.
Taha Karasu can be contacted at: taha.karasu@oulu.ﬁ
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
Or contact us for further details: firstname.lastname@example.org
IPD and BIM