Content uploaded by Milad Ghanbari
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Milad Ghanbari on Jan 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Engineering Management and Systems
Engineering
https://www.acadlore.com/journals/JEMSE
Mitigating Construction Delays in Iran: An Empirical Evaluation of
Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery
Milad Ghanbari1* , Dina Zolfaghari2, Zohreh Yadegari3
1Department of Civil Engineering, East Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, 1866113118 Tehran, Iran
2Department of Project Management, University College of Omran & Tosee, 6515735617 Hamedan, Iran
3Department of Project Management and Construction, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, 1416894351
Tehran, Iran
*Correspondence: Milad Ghanbari (Milad.ghanbari@srbiau.ac.ir)
Received: 07-05-2023 Revised: 08-12-2023 Accepted: 08-25-2023
Citation: M. Ghanbari, D. Zolfaghari, and Z. Yadegari, “Mitigating construction delays in Iran: An empirical
evaluation of building information modeling and integrated project delivery,” J. Eng. Manag. Syst. Eng., vol. 2, no.
3, pp. 170–179, 2023. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020304.
2023 by the authors. Published by Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article is available for free download
and can be reused and cited, provided that the original published version is credited, under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Abstract: Project delays pose a substantial challenge in the construction sector. Theprimary objective of this research
is to discern the root causes of project delays in the construction industry and proffer potential solutions, inclusive
of the application of building information modeling (BIM) and integrated project delivery (IPD). The integration
of IPD and BIM, predicated upon established blueprints, was explored to streamline cost management processes
and investigate the potential incorporation of design information within the framework of building price lists. A
comprehensive review of extant literature identified 20 possible causes of delays in Iranian construction projects.
This study employed a descriptive research design, analyzing data collected from 90 questionnaires completed by
construction experts using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) statistical software. A case study
of the Dehloran Azad University building project was undertaken, utilizing Revit software for simulation exercises.
Field investigations, coupled with a questionnaire disseminated among construction consultants and contractors,
elucidated four primary factors contributing to project delays in Iran: 1) the employer’s failure to fulfill financial
obligations; 2) disregard for the socio-political-economic conditions; 3) absence of a feasibility study prior to tender
participation; and 4) inadequate interdepartmental communication. Successful project execution hinges on active
team participation and the value that such teamwork brings. The implementation of the IPD model was found
to encourage increased enthusiasm and participation. Given that the most significant source of delays in Iran’s
construction projects was identified as financial issues, the adoption of BIM/IPD may mitigate delays and risks
associated with inaccurate estimates. This approach was also found to be effective in projects that are in mid-stage
completion.
Keywords: Integrated project delivery; Project delay; Building information modeling; Construction management
1 Introduction
Each annum, a significant proportion of Iran’s public funds is devoted to construction projects that invariably
miss their projected timelines [1,2]. Project delays often render previously viable technical and economic plans
obsolete in the face of changing circumstances [3]. Construction projects act as vital tools for both nations and
organizations, facilitating the transformation of strategic visions, goals, and plans into tangible results [4]. The
success index of projects is gauged by five criteria: time performance, cost performance, quality performance, HSE
performance, and client satisfaction performance [5].
Research indicates that a mere 23 percent of construction projects in Iran were finalized within the scheduled
timeframe between 2002 and 2014, leading to substantial cost overruns [6]. An analysis of diverse construction
projects in Iran demonstrated an average delay of 5.9 months per year, with an overall cost overrun of 15.4 percent [7].
As per the Statistical Center of Iran, the direct costs of project delays for the Iranian government were estimated at
$21 billion between 2002 and 2012 [7]. These findings underscore the pressing issue of delay in Iranian construction
projects [6], thus necessitating further research to identify and mitigate the various causes of these delays, which
forms the primary motivation for this study.
https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020304
170
Traditional project delivery methods, including Lump Sum Design-Bid-Build (LS), Design/Build (DB), Con-
struction Management at-risk (CMC), and Construction Management Advisor (CMa) are frequently utilized [8,9].
However, these traditional methods often encounter challenges in terms of teams, processes, risk, compensation,
reward, communication, technology, and agreements, which can invariably lead to project delays and cost infla-
tions [8].
In response to the challenges and uncertainties associated with traditional delivery methods, scholars and
practitioners have proposed the IPD method as a collaborative and resilient delivery system [10]. IPD promotes an
organizational approach that encourages collaboration among diverse project stakeholders from the initial phases,
maintaining this interconnected environment throughout the project stages [11]. This system offers numerous
advantages, including enhanced productivity, improved coordination, reduced duration, and cost efficiency [12].
A growing inclination towards the IPD method is observed among construction firms due to the increasing
complexity of global construction projects [9]. However, despite its global uptake, the IPD method remains relatively
unknown and underused in Iran. The absence of teamwork and communication among project stakeholders in the
Iranian construction industry has been linked to project failures [6,13]. The implementation of the IPD model
could potentially address this issue, enhancing project outcomes by fostering increased enthusiasm and participation.
Additionally, BIM has been recognized as a promising technology in the construction industry, providing efficiency,
cost savings, and increased productivity [8]. A thorough exploration of the interaction between BIM and IPD
compliance is essential to understand their impact on project performance.
The extant literature and industry practices present certain gaps, particularly a lack of comprehensive research
integrating IPD and BIM to efficiently identify, reduce, and manage construction project delays. The potential
synergies and effectiveness of combining these methodologies warrant further exploration to optimize project
planning and execution.
The present study is directed towards four cohesive objectives: Firstly, the identification and ranking of the
primary factors contributing to project delays in construction projects. Secondly, the investigation of contractor and
consultant perspectives on the main factors leading to project delays. Thirdly, an exploration of the effectiveness of
integrating BIM and IPD in reducing project delays. Lastly, the conduct of a financial estimation of projects using
the BIM model with a preventive approach to mitigate delays and enhance overall project efficiency. By addressing
these objectives, this research aims to provide valuable insights into the causes of delays and propose strategies for
their efficient management and reduction in construction projects.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Project Delays
The phenomenon of delays in construction projects has been the focus of extensive scholarly research for several
years. Investigations in this realm have been primarily bifurcated into two thematic areas: The elucidation of delay
factors and an examination of their impacts.
In the context of England, a comprehensive investigation was carried out by Olawale and Sun [14], with the
objective of delineating factors impeding project progression and suggesting strategies to alleviate time and cost
overruns endemic in construction projects. A similar study was undertaken in Egypt by Abd El-Razek et al. [15],
which revealed that stakeholder perspectives vary significantly on the factors contributing to project delays.
An integrated approach to understanding the origins and implications of construction delays was adopted in a
Malaysian study by Sambasivan and Soon [16]. They identified 28 factors responsible for project delays, highlighting
ten as particularly significant, including inadequate planning, ineffective contractor management, limited contractor
experience, financial constraints, and communication deficiencies. A study by Ling and Hoi [17] tailored a time
performance guide for Singaporean contractors operating in India to address the unique complexities of the regional
construction landscape.
Research conducted in the United Arab Emirates by Faridi and El-Sayegh [18] identified three major causes
of project delays: 1) slow approval of construction plans, 2) insufficient pre-planning, and 3) protracted decision-
making processes. In a Hong Kong-based study, Lo et al. [19] classified 30 delay factors into seven distinct categories
pertinent to the employer, design engineer, contractor, human behavior, project characteristics, and external factors.
Iyer and Jha [20] explored the characteristics of project success and failure in India, identifying telltale signs of
project failure such as conflicts among project officials, informational deficiencies, lack of cooperation, challenging
economic and social conditions, delays in decision-making, intense competition during tendering, and limited time
for tender submission.
In Iran, the mean projected duration for project completion is estimated at 8.9 years [1]. Delays can be divided
into two categories: authorized delays, which are beyond the contractor’s control and are often due to force majeure
events, and unauthorized delays, which arise from the contractor’s negligence. The former allows for financial
compensation, whereas the latter does not. Factors causing delays have been extensively studied and categorized into
171
justifiable and unjustifiable factors by researchers. The former often includes unpredictable natural events, while the
latter typically results from structural, managerial, or operational deficiencies [21].
2.2 Integrated Project Delivery and Building Information Modeling
IPD, as defined by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), is a construction industry method that underscores
the importance of coordination and collaboration among project team members. IPD facilitates the concerted
efforts of architects, engineers, owners, and other stakeholders, thereby enabling them to pool their knowledge
and experience, and participate actively in all project phases in a coordinated fashion [22,23]. This approach
underscores the importance of collaboration and teamwork, and when implemented, can enhance construction
quality, reduce resource waste and costs, accelerate project schedules, and heighten customer satisfaction. A key
outcome of employing IPD is an improvement in construction project timelines due to minimized waste through
superior planning and shared risks and rewards [24]. The AIA further characterizes IPD as a collaborative team
of multidisciplinary design and construction professionals that leverages alternative processes and technologies to
successfully complete a project [25].
BIM, on the other hand, involves the creation, management, and digital representation of building information
throughout its lifecycle. The transformative power of BIM significantly influences architectural design, engineering,
and construction practices. While architects and design engineers are often considered the primary users of BIM,
its advantages extend across the construction industry. BIM provides contractors with an unprecedented opportunity
to plan their execution methods and tools prior to project commencement. Its virtual simulation capabilities enable
the entire project team, including the main contractor, subcontractors, and builders, to collaborate and rehearse the
execution sequence and project site management, thereby enhancing project implementation [26].
The adoption of BIM offers a plethora of advantages such as improved coordination, integration, cooperation,
and collaboration among construction project stakeholders. It aids in reducing errors, repetitions, and waste,
thereby enhancing profitability and cost-efficiency while fulfilling the client’s expectations in the most time-efficient
manner [27]. BIM functions as a platform that facilitates various operations involved in modeling the complete
lifecycle of a building. By making changes and incorporating new design and construction capabilities into drawings,
BIM supports a highly integrated design and construction process. When implemented effectively, this integration
leads to superior quality constructions at reduced costs and shorter durations [28]. The optimization of 4D BIM can
further contribute to cost reduction and overall construction process efficiency [29].
To facilitate the application of IPD principles in a project, the AIA has formulated standardized contracts,
outlining the specific tools necessary for project parties. These IPD contracts typically specify the BIM software
tools that are essential for identifying the necessary contractors for the project and the tools that the contractors will
employ throughout the project duration [30].
The combination of IPD and BIM involves the integration of two distinct concepts. During the operational
phase of a building, maintenance and repair activities necessitate corrective and preventive measures [31]. The
joint utilization of IPD and BIM can, hence, enhance the lifespan of a building and facilitate its maintenance and
repairs. The AIA document on IPD states that while it is possible to achieve IPD without BIM, the use of BIM is
recommended for effective collaboration [32].
The integration of BIM and IPD has garnered significant attention in the construction industry due to their
potential to improve project outcomes and efficiency. BIM facilitates collaboration and informed decision-making
through 3D modeling, leading to cost savings and improved coordination [33]. IPD encourages early involvement of
key stakeholders, fostering teamwork and trust, thereby enhancing project performance [34,35]. Merging BIM and
IPD can leverage their strengths, positively impacting project efficiency and reducing delays. However, challenges
such as resistance to cultural change and technological barriers exist [36]. Further research is required to foster
successful implementation and adoption of BIM and IPD in construction projects, with particular focus on their role
in reducing delays.
3 Material and Method
3.1 Research Design
A comprehensive review of prior research, field investigation of the case study at hand, and interviews with
construction experts were conducted to identify 20 key factors that contribute to delays in construction projects.
These factors, which constitute the independent variables of this research, were categorized into four groups for ease
of understanding: client, consultant, contractor, and management. The conceptual model representing these factors
is depicted in Figure 1.
In light of these variables, a descriptive research method was employed. The descriptive approach is a research
method that involves the careful observation and precise description of the characteristics, behaviors, and features
of a given group, situation, or phenomenon. This method was applied to analyze the 20 identified factors from the
perspectives of consultants and contractors, the details of which are elucidated in section 4.
172
Figure 1. Conceptual model
3.2 Case Study and Data Collection
The current research focuses on the Dehloran Azad University project, a construction endeavor spanning 788
square meters, initiated in 2011. The project is managed by the Zagros Foundation Company, designated as the
contractor following a competitive tendering process conducted by Dehloran Azad University. However, the project
has experienced delays attributable to budget limitations resulting from unfavorable national economic conditions,
primarily caused by sanctions. These financial difficulties have led to price disparities, causing delays and eventually
leading to the project’s suspension.
Data collection for this study was carried out in two stages. Firstly, a literature review was conducted, examining
articles pertinent to delay factors, IPD, and BIM. Following the initial identification of 20 significant delay factors,
a preliminary list was assembled. Subsequently, field data were collected through a survey instrument designed
around these 20 identified factors. The questionnaire, developed based on a 5-point Likert scale, solicited the expert
opinions of the relevant statistical community on the delay causes. The response options ranged from ’strongly
disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’, capturing the level of agreement or disagreement with each factor.
The case study of interest in this research is the building construction project at Dehloran Azad University located
in Ilam province. The study’s scope was limited due to accessibility constraints; thus, only experts residing in Iran’s
Ilam province were surveyed. The target population for this study comprised construction experts familiar with the
principles of IPD and BIM. By consulting with the engineering system organization and the municipalities of Ilam
province, it was estimated that the population size was approximately 120 construction experts/engineers. Based on
the Morgan table sampling method, the sample size was determined to be 92. The sampling method employed was
non-probability, judgmental sampling, primarily relying on the expertise of the individuals and their availability.
Given that contractors and consultants may hold differing views on the causes of delay, the perspectives of both
groups were analyzed independently.
Hard copies of the questionnaires were provided to the experts with any necessary explanation or guidance for
answering. The process of disseminating and collecting completed questionnaires spanned three months. A response
rate of 97.8% was achieved, with 90 completed questionnaires returned.
3.3 Data Analysis Method
A total of 92 questionnaires were disseminated among the construction experts, with 47 consultants and 45
contractors participating. The responses were then subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS software.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, executed in SPSS, was employed to assess the normality of variable distributions.
The normality test is a statistical procedure that determines whether a given dataset or variable aligns with a normal
distribution. In a normal distribution, data surrounds the mean equitably, creating a bell-shaped curve. This
assumption of normality is paramount for various statistical analyses, as numerous statistical methods and tests rely
on it. The results of the normality test as shown in Table 1reveal a significance level below 0.05 for the research
variables, suggesting a normal distribution for the questionnaire data.
173
The reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient test in SPSS. This metric
gauges the internal consistency or reliability of a set of survey items, ensuring that they consistently measure the
same construct. The computed reliability coefficient for the data stood at 0.78, exceeding the established threshold
of 0.7, thereby confirming the reliability of the questionnaire.
Finally, Revit software, which operates within a BIM environment, was utilized to simulate the financial analysis
of the price list.
Table 1. Normal distribution of variables
Components Kolmogorov Smirnov .Sig
Client 1.762 0.004
Consultant 1.678 0.007
Contractor 1.642 0.009
Management 1.407 0.038
4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Delay Analysis
Questionnaires were disseminated amongst a total of 90 construction experts, which included 45 professionals
associated with contracting firms and an equal number of experts from the consulting side. The data collected
from the responses were subsequently subjected to statistical analysis utilizing SPSS software. All disseminated
questionnaires were returned with all queries addressed. The demographic data of the respondents are summarized
in Table 2.
Table 2. Normal distribution of variables
Characteristics Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Age
>40 47 52.22
30-40 36 40.00
<30 7 7.78
Specialty
Civil engineering 46 51.11
Architecture 38 42.22
Electricity 3 3.33
Mechanics 3 3.33
Experience
>25 21 23.33
15-25 38 42.22
10-14 24 26.67
5-9 7 7.78
Education level
PhD 9 10.00
Master 32 35.56
Bachelor 49 54.44
Dependency Contractor 45 50.00
Consultant 45 50.00
The Coefficient of Variation (CV) provides an appropriate measure for comparing the dispersion or variation of
two data sets collected using different measurement units. This statistical index calculates the ratio of dispersion to
a central criterion, effectively illustrating the magnitude of standard deviation per unit change in the mean. A larger
index indicates a greater dispersion of data. In this study, the ranking of delay factors was grounded in the values
of the CV. The study outcomes, encompassing the rankings of delay causes, are presented in Table 3and Table 4.
Table 3offers an insight into the ranking of primary delay causes as perceived by contractors, while Table 4sheds
light on the consultants’ perspectives.
Based on the data presented in Table 3and Table 4, the principal contributors to delays in the construction project
of the Dehloran Azad University building were discerned from the viewpoints of both consultants and contractors.
The top four factors shared a commonality across both perspectives. The foremost cause pinpointed by both parties
was the employer’s failure to fulfill financial obligations. Disregarding the socio-political economic conditions was
the second factor. The lack of a feasibility study prior to participating in the tender was highlighted in the third
position by both groups. The fourth factor, shared by contractors and consultants, was the inadequate communication
174
among the departments involved in the project. These four factors were identified as the primary contributors to the
delays experienced in the case study project.
Table 3. Prioritizing the main causes of delay (view point of contractors)
Item Mean Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
Rank
Non-fulfillment of financial obligations 4.31 0.589 0.136 1
Ignoring the political-economic conditions of the
society
3.97 0.714 0.179 2
Lack of feasibility study before participating in
the tender
3.86 0.858 0.221 3
Lack of communication between departments 3.71 1.22 0.329 4
Weather conditions 3.24 1.15 0.356 5
Mistakes and non-agreements in contract
documents
3.22 1.171 0.363 6
Unreal applied contract period 3.33 1.28 0.384 7
Shortage and low quality of materials 3.17 1.269 0.399 8
Poor management by the contractor 2.84 1.17 0.412 9
Change of managers 3.46 1.45 0.419 10
Accidents during construction 3.31 1.41 0.426 11
Lack of manpower 3.15 1.504 0.476 12
Construction methods 3.044 1.475 0.484 13
Failure to identify and update project risks 2.73 1.33 0.49 14
Choosing an inexperienced contractor 2.75 1.368 0.496 15
Unavailability and failure of equipment 2.8 1.407 0.502 16
Slow decision making by client 2.86 1.46 0.536 17
Disagreements and major conflicts 2.28 1.31 0.572 18
Owner involvement 2.68 1.589 0.591 19
Slowness in preparing and approving plans 2.42 1.527 0.63 20
It is evident that the primary reason for the project’s failure was the lack of consideration for costs and the
absence of accurate financial estimation prior to tender participation. To mitigate delays in construction projects,
one potential solution is the utilization of the IPD method. This method facilitates rapid project estimation and can
help address the challenges associated with project delays.
IPD is a comprehensive implementation system that has recently been recognized for its potential to enhance
productivity in projects. Broadly, IPD can significantly mitigate future issues related to delays in semi-real projects.
In contrast to traditional methods such as Design-Build (DB), where a definitive cost is determined during the design
phase without a detailed feasibility study, IPD provides a more risk-averse approach for the contractor team, thereby
reducing costs and other associated risks. In the IPD method, the employer assumes the risk and is actively involved
in all stages of design and implementation, which significantly reduces costs. The cost of a project implemented with
the IPD method is generally much lower than that executed using traditional methods. The IPD method emphasizes
mutual trust, collaboration, and robust communication among project stakeholders. BIM tools are critical for owners
to comprehend the objectives and perspectives of the IPD team’s designers and builders. When an owner employs
IPD for project procurement, BIM can be used by the project team from the design’s inception to enhance their
understanding of the project requirements and secure cost estimates.
4.2 IPD-BIM Modelling
Revit software, known for its comprehensive capabilities in modeling and simulating a variety of architectural
and structural components, such as walls, doors, windows, roofs, floors, columns, beams, trusses, and foundations,
was employed. Aligned with the primary objective of this research, which is the application of the IPD method
to curtail construction project delays, the focus was shifted towards the project segment subjected to the highest
frequency of alterations.
In the context of the Dehloran University building project in Iran, a significant portion of the changes was
particularly associated with the walls, which were instrumental in contributing to the project’s delays. These changes
were primarily due to inaccurate estimations during the design phase. Thus, the modeling of walls using Revit
software was given special attention. The resulting BIM model of the Dehloran University building project is
illustrated in Figure 2.
175
Table 4. Prioritizing the main causes of delay (view point of contractors)
Item Mean Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
Rank
Non-fulfillment of financial obligations 4.17 1.14 0.273 1
Ignoring the political-economic conditions of the
society
3.91 1.09 0.279 2
Lack of feasibility study before participating in
the tender
3.77 1.113 0.294 3
Lack of communication between departments 3.73 1.162 0.311 4
Lack of manpower 3.68 1.17 0.317 5
Change of managers 3.55 1.184 0.333 6
Construction methods 3.55 1.2 0.338 7
Disagreements and major conflicts 3.48 1.275 0.365 8
Shortage and low quality of materials 2.73 1.019 0.373 9
Unavailability and failure of equipment 3.33 1.264 0.379 10
Accidents during construction 3.42 1.374 0.401 11
Owner involvement 3.66 1.475 0.402 12
Failure to identify and update project risks 3.28 1.327 0.403 13
Poor management by the contractor 3.37 1.37 0.405 14
Weather conditions 3.2 1.343 0.419 15
Unreal applied contract period 3.02 1.273 0.421 16
Slowness in preparing and approving plans 3.35 1.462 0.435 17
Slow decision making by client 2.2 1.146 0.521 18
Mistakes and non-agreements in contract
documents
2.64 1.44 0.547 19
Choosing an inexperienced contractor 3 1.77 0.592 20
Figure 2. BIM model of Dehloran University building project
Table 5. Estimated values related to the implementation of the wall
# Description of Operation Unit Qty Length Width Height Total
1 Basement walls with solid bricks m31 42 0.35 2.4 35.28
2 Walling of underground warehouses with
solid bricks
m31 19 2.4 2.4 45.6
3 External wall brickwork with clay block
on the ground floor, 22 cm thickness
m31 22 0.22 3.2 15.49
4 Flat brick on the ground floor, 10 cm
thickness
m31 31 0.1 3.2 9.92
5 External wall brick with clay block in
floors, 22 cm thickness
m34 20 0.22 3 52.8
6 Flat bricks in the floors, 10 cm thickness m34 38 0.1 3 45.6
Following the identification of the wall component as the most frequently altered, the associated sections in
the price list underwent a detailed analysis. Given that the sample walls in the Dehloran Azad University project
were constructed of bricks with applied mortar and plaster, the unit prices for brickwork and mortar, brickwork and
176
plastering, as well as plastering and banding were meticulously examined and computed within the price list.
Through the juxtaposition of values presented in Table 5with the BIM model of the project, a highly accurate
financial estimate for the wall can be derived, thus minimizing potential delays arising from calculation inaccuracies.
4.3 Discussion
Insights of significant value concerning the principal factors contributing to construction project delays in Iran
have been gleaned from this study, as perceived from the perspectives of both contractors and consultants. The
recognition of these key delay factors serves to augment understanding of the challenges inherent within Iran’s
construction industry. The implications of these findings hold potential to inform future project management
strategies and decision-making processes, thus enabling stakeholders to effectively prioritize and address critical
delay factors. Furthermore, the study underscores the importance of the integration of IPD and BIM methodologies,
which have been shown to enhance project efficiency and mitigate delays.
The findings from this research have potential applicability to other analogous construction projects in Iran, as
well as in regions grappling with similar economic challenges and sanctions. The delay factors identified, along with
the importance of integrating IPD and BIM methodologies, hold relevance and can offer valuable insights to project
stakeholders looking to mitigate delays and boost project efficiency.
However, the study’s primary limitation lies in its focus on a singular case study, namely the Dehloran Azad
University project. The resulting findings may not fully encompass the intricacies and variations inherent in other
projects, as each project possesses unique characteristics and contextual aspects. Therefore, caution is advised when
seeking to directly apply these results to different projects. Further investigation encompassing a broader range of
projects is recommended to corroborate the general applicability of the findings.
Within this study, the key features of the utilized IPD model are early involvement of principal stakeholders,
mutual accountability, shared risks and rewards, continuous collaboration and communication, and a focus on project
efficiency. The research also accentuates the use of integrated technology, such as BIM, to enhance visualization and
coordination among stakeholders. In addition, the IPD model’s emphasis on early planning and design to address
potential challenges and optimize project outcomes is underscored in this research. Collectively, these attributes of
the IPD model contribute to reducing construction project delays and improving project outcomes.
5 Conclusions
This research endeavored to enhance the project execution process by harnessing IPD to mitigate delays. The
investigation probed the functionalities of IPD and BIM systems, with particular focus on their combined application
in alleviating project delays. The Dehloran University building project in Ilam, Iran, served as a practical case
study, elucidating the challenges encountered due to financial discussions and inadequate estimation and feasibility
studies. The 20 delay causes discerned through the literature review were categorized into four groups, namely
client, consultant, contractor, and management, for improved comprehension. An analysis of these significant delay
factors from the perspectives of contractors and consultants yielded invaluable insights into the primary causes of
construction project delays in Iran. The research identified four principal causes of construction delays:
1) non-fulfillment of financial obligations by the employer;
2) disregard for the socio-political economic conditions;
3) absence of feasibility study before tender participation;
4) lack of interdepartmental communication.
The incorporation of BIM and REVIT software in the project facilitated simulations and cost estimations, show-
casing the potential advantages of technology integration in the construction industry. Through this amalgamation,
the project team was able to promptly update design modifications and associated cost variations based on specific
contract types, utilizing the price list. The findings emphasized the crucial role of IPD in fostering collaboration and
trust among project stakeholders, leading to improved project management.
Nonetheless, the study also identified certain limitations, most notably the paucity of individuals with compre-
hensive knowledge regarding building information modeling, which may have influenced the depth of exploration
in this domain. This limitation indicates the necessity for further research to bridge the knowledge gap and fully
investigate the potential of BIM in construction projects.
Considering the implications of the research, it becomes evident that the adoption of IPD and BIM in the
construction industry carries significant potential in reducing delays and enhancing project outcomes. The findings
contribute not only to a deeper understanding of delay factors but also highlight the value of technology integration
in streamlining project management processes. Future research could build upon these insights by examining
the long-term impacts of adopting IPD and BIM across different construction projects and industries. Additionally,
investigating strategies to overcome barriers to the widespread adoption of these methodologies could further enhance
their effectiveness in mitigating delays and improving project delivery. By addressing these broader implications
177
and the study’s limitations, the construction industry can progress towards more efficient and successful project
implementation.
Author Contributions
Methodology, G.M. and Y.Z.; supervision, G.M.; data analysis, Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.D.
All the authors contributed to writing the article, read and approved its submission.
Data Availability
The data used to support the research findings are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the support of the respondents (Construction Engineers in Ilam) to the questionnaire of
this study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] M. Ghanbari, M. Hosseinalipour, and S. F. Mousavi, “Two proposed basis strategies for delay claims assessments
in engineering projects: An Iranian perspective,” in International Conference on Construction and Real Estate
Management 2016, Edmonton, Canada, 2016, pp. 932–939.
[2] A. Alvanchi, “Analyzing dynamics of Iran’s public construction projects delivered under design-bid-build
method,” Sharif J. Civ. Eng., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3–10, 2020.
[3] O. Abbasi, E. Noorzai, K. Gharouni Jafari, and M. Golabchi, “Exploring the causes of delays in construction
industry using a cause-and-effect diagram: Case study for Iran,” J. Archit. Eng., vol. 26, no. 3, p. 05020008,
2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000431
[4] R. Rajabi and M. Ghanbari, “Identifying and prioritizing green building parameters in the implementation of
sustainable development management with an energy approach,” in International Conference on Construction
and Real Estate Management, Edmonton, Canada, 2016, pp. 535–546.
[5] S. Khosravi and H. Afshari, “A success measurement model for construction projects,” in 2011 International
Conference on Financial Management and Economics, Singapore, 2011, pp. 186–190.
[6] M. Jahangoshai Rezaee, S. Yousefi, and R. K. Chakrabortty, “Analysing causal relationships between delay
factors in construction projects: A case study of iran,” Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 412–444,
2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2019-0020
[7] H. Samarghandi, S. M. M. Tabatabaei, P. Taabayan, A. M. Hashemi, and K. Willoughby, “Studying the reasons
for delay and cost overrun in construction projects: The case of Iran,” J. Constr. Dev. Countries, vol. 21, no. 1,
pp. 51–84, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.21315/jcdc2016.21.1.4
[8] B. D. Ilozor and D. J. Kelly, “Building information modeling and integrated project delivery in the commercial
construction industry: A conceptual study,” J. Eng. Proj. Prod. Manag., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 23–36, 2012.
[9] M. El Asmar, A. S. Hanna, and W.-Y. Loh, “Quantifying performance for the integrated project delivery system
as compared to established delivery systems,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. 11, p. 04013012, 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000744
[10] S. Durdyev, M. R. Hosseini, I. Martek, S. Ismail, and M. Arashpour, “Barriers to the use of integrated project
delivery (IPD): A quantified model for Malaysia,” Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 186–204,
2019. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2018-0535
[11] L. Zhang, T. Cao, and Y. Wang, “The mediation role of leadership styles in integrated project collaboration:
An emotional intelligence perspective,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 317–330, 2018. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.014
[12] M. Sherif, I. Abotaleb, and F. K. Alqahtani, “Application of integrated project delivery (IPD) in the middle
east: Implementation and challenges,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 467, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/building
s12040467
[13] Z. Kahvandi, E. Saghatforoush, A. ZareRavasan, and C. Preece, “Integrated project delivery implementation
challenges in the construction industry,” Civil Eng. J., vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 1672–1683, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2
8991/cej-2019-03091362
178
[14] Y. A. Olawale and M. Sun, “Cost and time control of construction projects: Inhibiting factors and mitigating
measures in practice,” Constr. Manag. Econ., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 509–526, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144
6191003674519
[15] M. E. Abd El-Razek, H. A. Bassioni, and A. M. Mobarak, “Causes of delay in building construction projects
in Egypt,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 134, no. 11, pp. 831–841, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(2008)134:11(831)
[16] M. Sambasivan and Y. W. Soon, “Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry,” Int. J. Proj.
Manag., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 517–526, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.007
[17] F. Y. Y. Ling and L. Hoi, “Risks faced by singapore firms when undertaking construction projects in India,”
Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 261–270, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.003
[18] A. Faridi and S. El-Sayegh, “Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction industry,” Constr.
Manag. Econ., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1167–1176, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600827033
[19] T. Y. Lo, I. W. Fung, and K. C. Tung, “Construction delays in Hong Kong civil engineering projects,” J. Constr.
Eng. Manag., vol. 132, no. 6, pp. 636–649, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:6(636)
[20] K. C. Iyer and K. N. Jha, “Factors affecting cost performance: Evidence from Indian construction projects,”
Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 283–295, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.10.003
[21] D. W. Chan and M. M. Kumaraswamy, “Compressing construction durations: Lessons learned from Hong
Kong building projects,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 23–35, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-
7863(00)00032-6
[22] D. Kelly and B. Ilozor, “Performance outcome assessment of the integrated project delivery (IPD) method
for commercial construction projects in USA,” Int. J. Constr. Manag., vol. 22, no. 14, pp. 2808–2816, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1827340
[23] E. M. Sari, A. P. Irawan, M. A. Wibowo, J. P. Siregar, R. Z. Tamin, A. K. A. Praja, and M. P. Dewi, “Challenge
and awareness for implemented integrated project delivery (IPD) in Indonesian projects,” Buildings, vol. 13,
no. 1, p. 262, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010262
[24] Q. Lu, J. Won, and J. C. Cheng, “A financial decision making framework for construction projects based
on 5D building information modeling (BIM),” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 3–21, 2016. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.09.004
[25] Y. Su, G. Lucko, and R. C. Thompson Jr, “Apportioning contract float with voting methods to correlated
activities in network schedules to protect construction projects from delays,” Autom. Constr., vol. 118, p.
103263, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103263
[26] D. Bryde, M. Broquetas, and J. M. Volm, “The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM),” Int.
J. Proj. Manag., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 971–980, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.001
[27] P. Lim, Project delivery methods. Singapore: National University of Singapore, 2020.
[28] W. Nofera, T. S. Abdelhamid, and A. Lahouti, “Teaching lean construction for university student (s),” in 23rd
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Perth, Australia, 2015, pp. 424–433.
[29] M. Gunduz and H. Elsherbeny, “Practical implementation of contract administration performance model in
Qatar construction projects,” in International Conference on Civil Infrastructure and Construction (CIC 2020),
Doha, Qatar, 2020, pp. 55–64.
[30] K. A. Alkhalid, “Using integrated project delivery (IPD) to resolve the major construction project delay causes
in Saudi Arabia,” Master’s thesis, The University of Kansas, 2011.
[31] M. Ghanbari and M. Mojtahedzadeh Asl, “Proposing a building maintenance management framework to
increase the useful life of the building,” Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 52–61, 2021. https:
//doi.org/10.22034/IJIEMS.2021.289406.1039
[32] “Integrated project delivery: An updated working definition.” The American Institute of Architects, California
Council, 2014. https://leanipd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IPD-A-Working-Definition-FINAL.pdf
[33] C. Eastman, P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, and K. Liston, BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling
for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[34] M. L. Viana, B. H. Hadikusumo, M. Z. Mohammad, and Z. Kahvandi, “Integrated project delivery (IPD):
An updated review and analysis case study,” J. Eng. Proj. & Prod. Manag., vol. 10, no. 2, 2020. http:
//doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-2020-0017
[35] L. S. Yee, C. C. Saar, A. M. Yusof, L. S. Chuing, and H. Y. Chong, “An empirical review of integrated project
delivery (IPD) system,” Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2017. https://doi.org/10.18178/iji
mt.2017.8.1.693
[36] T. Karasu, K. Aaltonen, and H. Haapasalo, “The interplay of IPD and BIM: A systematic literature review,”
Constr. Innov., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 640–664, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-07-2021-0134
179
