FACTORS INFLUENCING EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
OF INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY IN PROJECT TEAM
ORGANIZATIONS AS AN INNOVATION IN THE AEC
INDUSTRY
By
Weida Sun

A THESIS
Submitted to the
Michigan State University
in the partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Construction Management – Master of Science
2013

ABSTRACT
FACTORS INFLUENCING EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATED PROJECT
DELIVERY IN PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATIONS AS AN INNOVATION IN THE AEC
INDUSTRY
By
Weida Sun
In the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry, integration among parties
with different skills who are working on an interorganizational team can improve project
performance. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) as an innovative project delivery method
enhances the integration of AEC project teams with a series of strategies that improves team
collaboration, creates trust, and shares risks. However, it is not easy to promote an innovative
approach that challenges the traditional way. Klein and Sorra (1996) identify the function of
team climate and values fit in effective innovation implementation. The literature also highlights
the significance of communication in the innovation implementation process. To foster the IPD
implementation process so that AEC projects can benefit from such an innovation, this study
tests Klein and Sorra’s (1996) model and investigates the role of communication in innovation
implementation. By employing qualitative content analysis and a case study approach, this
research establishes an innovation implementation evaluation system, identifies seven principal
factors and five secondary factors influencing IPD implementation, and proposes that a team
climate and a communication mechanism can influence facilitation of successful IPD
implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my parents, who brought me into this world, raised me, and showed
me how I could make a difference in our world. It is their love and inspiration that made me who
I am today. Their selfless financial and spiritual support enabled my dream of studying in the
United States to come true.
Then I would like to offer sincere gratitude to my main advisor, Dr. Sinem Mollaoglu
(Korkmaz), who introduced me to the research world, guided my thesis, and encouraged me
when I encountered difficulties. I also would like to thank Dr. Vernon Miller for giving me
valuable suggestions on my research and Dr. Matt Syal for his inspirational advice on my thesis
and coursework. At the same time, I appreciate Dr. Tariq Abdelhamid, Dr. Mohamed El-Gafy,
Dr. Armagan Korkmaz, and Professor Tim Mrozowski, all of whom provided excellent courses
and helped me become a young professional in the construction management field. In addition, I
would like to thank all the other faculty and staff members who helped me and witnessed my
progress over the past two years.
Of course, I cannot forget my friends who made my life colorful and meaningful during that
time. Thank you for your companionship. Especially, I would like to thank Jing Du, Daniel
Duah, Yunjeong Mo, and Tucker Wilkinson, who provided invaluable support both academically
and emotionally to get me through the tough time.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................ 3
1.3 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Findings and Deliverables ................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 10
2.1 Need for Team Integration in the AEC Industry ............................................................ 10
2.2 IPD as an Innovation to Address Need for Integration .................................................. 11
2.3 Innovation Implementation in Interorganizational Project Teams ................................. 13
2.4 Role of Communication in Innovation Implementation and Team Integration ............. 15
2.5 Innovation Implementation Model ................................................................................. 19
2.5.1 Climate .................................................................................................................... 21
2.5.2 Innovation-Values Fit ............................................................................................. 22
2.5.3 Communication ....................................................................................................... 22
2.5.4 Innovation Implementation Effectiveness .............................................................. 23
2.5.5 Innovation Effectiveness ......................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 29
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 29
3.2 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 30
3.3 Research Approach ........................................................................................................ 32
3.3.1 Choice of Research Strategy ................................................................................... 33
3.3.2 Data Quality ............................................................................................................ 34
3.4 Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................................. 36
3.4.1 Metrics for Data Collection .................................................................................... 36
3.4.2 Selection of Content Analysis and Case Study ....................................................... 38
3.4.3 Data Collection Tools ............................................................................................. 39
3.4.4 Data Collection Process .......................................................................................... 40
3.5 Data Coding Procedure .................................................................................................. 41
3.6 Data Analysis Methods and Process .............................................................................. 42
3.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 44
CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION, CODING, AND ANALYSIS ....................................... 45
4.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 45
4.1.1 Content Analysis ..................................................................................................... 45
4.1.2 Case Study .............................................................................................................. 46
4.2 Data Coding for Content Analysis and Case Study ....................................................... 49
iv

4.3 Data Quality ................................................................................................................... 53
4.3.1 Reducing Sampling Error ....................................................................................... 53
4.3.2 Avoiding Respondent Bias ..................................................................................... 53
4.3.3 Performing Reliability Check ................................................................................. 54
4.4 Data Analysis for Content Analysis and Case Study ..................................................... 56
4.4.1 Quotation Quantity Management ............................................................................ 57
4.4.2 Score Calculation .................................................................................................... 66
4.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 69
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 70
5.1 Content Analysis Findings ............................................................................................. 70
5.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 70
5.1.2 Score Performance of Metrics ................................................................................ 71
5.1.3 Top Five Metrics with Highest Scores Based on Content Analysis ....................... 73
5.1.4 Metrics with Lowest Scores Based on Content Analysis ....................................... 75
5.1.5 Performance Constructs .......................................................................................... 76
5.2 Case Study Findings ....................................................................................................... 77
5.2.1 Metric Scores for Case Study ................................................................................. 77
5.2.2 Special Considerations in Case Study..................................................................... 79
5.3 Influencing Factors—Pattern Matching Findings .......................................................... 87
5.4 Cross Case Synthesis Findings ..................................................................................... 102
5.5 Insights from the Longitudinally Collected Case Study Data ...................................... 105
5.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 109
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 110
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 110
6.2 Deliverables .................................................................................................................. 110
6.3 Propositions from Pattern Matching ............................................................................ 112
6.4 Propositions from Cross-Case Synthesis ..................................................................... 114
6.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 114
CHAPTER 7 DISSCUSSION AND SUMMARY .................................................................. 116
7.1 Practical and Theoretical Application .......................................................................... 116
7.1.1 Practical Applications ........................................................................................... 116
7.1.2 Theoretical Applications ....................................................................................... 118
7.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................... 122
7.3 Suggestions for Future Research .................................................................................. 123
7.3.1 Adopting Social Network Analysis ...................................................................... 124
7.3.2 Developing a Survey ............................................................................................. 125
7.4 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 126
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 130
APPENDIX A Metrics description and measuring criteria ................................................. 131
APPENDIX B Structured Interview .................................................................................... 141
APPENDIX C Consent Form for Interview ......................................................................... 153
APPENDIX D Consent Form for Project Data .................................................................... 155

v

APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H

Quotation Quantity of Content Analysis and Case Study ............................ 157
Project Scores under Including Neutral Quotation Situation ....................... 160
Project Scores under Excluding Neutral Quotation Situation ..................... 163
Quotation Coding Results ............................................................................ 166

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 391

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Master Metrics for Innovation Implementation Evaluation .............................................. 5
Table 2 Innovation Implementation Metrics................................................................................. 24
Table 3 Case Study Design Tests.................................................................................................. 35
Table 4 IPD Implementation Evaluation Metric Index................................................................. 63
Table 5 Comparison of including and excluding neutral quotations (1) ...................................... 68
Table 6 Comparison of including and excluding neutral quotations (2) ...................................... 68
Table 7 Average Score of Content Analysis Projects per Metric ................................................. 71
Table 8 Score for Project B per Metric ......................................................................................... 77
Table 9 Potential Factors that Influencing IPD Implementation .................................................. 89
Table 10 Principal Factors and Secondary Factors Influencing IPD Implementation.................. 92
Table 11 Influencing Factor Score Sorted by Project Size ......................................................... 103
Table 12 Influencing Factor Score Sorted by Innovation-Values Fit ......................................... 104
Table 13 Influencing Factor Score Sorted by Communication .................................................. 105
Table 14 Sample of Metrics, Measurements, and Standards for Evaluation .............................. 111
Table 15 Literature Supporting Findings for External Validation .............................................. 121
Table 16 Metrics description and measuring criteria .................................................................. 131
Table 17 Quotation Quantity of Content Analysis and Case Study............................................ 157
Table 18 Project Scores under Including Neutral Quotation Situation....................................... 160
Table 19 Project Scores under Excluding Neutral Quotation Situation ..................................... 163

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Original and Revised Klein and Sorra's (1996) Model .................................................... 4
Figure 2 Innovation Implementation Model (Klein and Sorra, 1996) .......................................... 15
Figure 3 Project Team Roles, Sizes, and Tiers in Construction Projects (Korkmaz et al., 2012) 18
Figure 4 Proposed Innovation Implementation Model (Miller & Korkmaz, 2012) adapted from
Klein & Sorra’s (1996) model. ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 5 Research Process Map .................................................................................................... 31
Figure 6 Screenshot of Atlas ti illustrating the process of coding quotations. ............................. 43
Figure 7 Data Coding Process in Atlas ti. ..................................................................................... 51
Figure 8 Data Coding and Data Analysis Process ........................................................................ 56
Figure 9 Snap shot of Quotation Management Excel Sheet ......................................................... 58
Figure 10 Quotation Distribution per Each Construct for Content Analysis and Case Study ...... 62
Figure 11 Quantity of Different Level Quotations in the Content Analysis ................................. 64
Figure 12 Quantity of Different Level Quotations in Case Study ................................................ 65
Figure 13 Score Comparison between Content Analysis and Case Study.................................... 91
Figure 14 Sample of Quotation Coding Results ......................................................................... 112
Figure 15 Constructs Relationship in Pattern-Matching Proposition ......................................... 113

viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview
The success of built environment projects in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction
(AEC) industry is highly dependent on the coordination of different project parties. An AEC
project team consists of multiple organizations with different skills and interests besides their
common interests for project success (Taylor & Levitt, 2007). This interorganizational structure
naturally contains gaps between the project parties. In addition, traditional contract systems
produce obstacles for collaboration and at times even lead to a hostile relationship between
different project parties. Although some technology innovations, such as building information
modeling—BIM (Azhar, Nadeem, Mok, & Leung, 2008), provide better tools for collaboration,
organizational and contractual innovations to improve the process of delivering built
environment projects have long been needed.

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), defined as “a relational contracting approach that aligns
project objectives with the interests of key participants” (Matthews & Howell, 2005), is a project
delivery method recently introduced in the United States to the AEC industry in response to this
need. IPD is initiated to address the issues of fragmental and hostile relationships within
interorganizational teams and to integrate all participants as a whole team. As in any innovation
adoption and implementation, however, IPD has been challenging to many AEC teams in
successfully integrating it.

1

Rogers (1995) posits the idea that the application of innovation includes initiation, adoption, and
implementation. Of those, implementation is the critical procedure because many organizations
that fail in the implementation process never achieve benefits from the innovation (Klein &
Sorra, 1996). Thus, how to implement the innovation effectively is crucial in terms of how much
it can contribute to the success of an AEC project.

Klein and Sorra (1996) develop an innovation adoption model and believe that climate/structure
for innovation implementation and innovation-values fit contribute to the implementation
effectiveness. Additionally, collaboration and communication aspects among teams are highly
significant to innovation implementation. Previous research manifests the belief that multiple
skills, information sharing, and disagreement resolution mechanisms are critical attributes for a
team working on complicated tasks (Kozlowski & Bell 2003; Lafasto & Larson 2001). To
perform well on those attributes, team communication is very essential.

The researcher of this study belongs to a research group from Michigan State University (MSU)
that is focusing on the topic of innovation implementation in project based industries. The
preliminary findings of a previous study by this group indicate that Klein and Sorra’s theory
about innovation implementation is reliable, although the researchers realize the need for
improvement in the model in such areas as coordination mechanism and innovation cultural fit.
Specifically in the AEC industry, research findings related to team integration (Korkmaz,
Swarup, & Riley, 2011; Pocock et al., 1997; Swarup, Korkmaz, & Riley, 2011) and industry
reports (7 Group, 2009; American Institute of Architects [AIA], 2010) identify some influential
attributes for the success of a construction project. The MSU research group’s preliminary

2

findings from a case study indicate that IPD’s innovative features can improve team
collaboration. The group identifies certain influencing factors (e.g., climate, innovation-values
fit) in IPD implementation based on Klein and Sorra’s (1996) model (Nofera, Korkmaz, &
Miller, 2011). Communication aspects (e.g., monitoring, managing, challenging, negotiating) are
also believed to be important in effective implementation of innovation in AEC projects (Nofera
et al., 2011), according to the MSU group’s results. Yet the group finds a gap in this field
because there are only a few studies in the literature focusing on the influence of communication
on innovation from a theoretical and systematic standpoint. Generally, the MSU group believes it
is appropriate to use Klein and Sorra’s theory as the starting point to investigate the factors
influencing IPD implementation as an innovation in the AEC industry—the subtopic of the
whole research on which this study will focus.

1.2 Research Goals and Objectives
Based on the existing literature and the gaps stated above, the goals of this research are (1) to
investigate how communication aspects—including managing, monitoring, challenging, and
negotiating—contribute to innovation implementation, and (2) to determine how this factor,
along with the implementation climate/structure and innovation-values fit, influence IPD
implementation as an innovation in the AEC industry. The specific objectives of this research are
as follows:
1. Test the revised Klein and Sorra’s (1996) innovation implementation model (as shown in
Figure 1) via content analysis and describe metrics for its constructs in the context of IPD
implementation in AEC teams;

3

Figure 1 Original and Revised Klein and Sorra's (1996) Model

4

2. Explore the communication mechanisms in IPD teams and their links to the Klein and Sorra
model (1996).
3. Develop propositions to define links among innovation implementation model constructs and
communication mechanisms.

1.3 Methods
In general, the researcher employs a qualitative research strategy by conducting a content
analysis and a case study. First, an evaluation system is established based on Klein and Sorra’s
(1996) innovation implementation model and the communication mechanisms proposed by
Miller and Korkmaz (2012). A series of metrics is developed to measure the degree of influence
for each influencing factor. For each metric, the definition and assessing standards are created.
Table 1 Master Metrics for Innovation Implementation Evaluationlists the master metrics used to
evaluate the innovation implementation performance of projects. The chapter on methodology
presents a more detailed interpretation of the submetrics used in this study.

Table 1 Master Metrics for Innovation Implementation Evaluation
Constructs

1. Climate

Metrics
1.1 Team
member skill
levels
1.2 Rewards

Description
Select participants with high skill levels or develop
participants' skill levels (e.g., previous experience,
training, sufficient time for learning and using
innovation) (Klein & Sorra, 1996)
Project team's motivators for pursuing IPD and reward
structures adopted (AIA & AIA California Council,
2007)

5

Table 1 (cont’d)

1. Climate

1.3 Absence of
obstacles

Organizations (1) respond to complaints, (2) remove
obstacles, or (3) exhibit no obstacles to IPD
implementation and function (e.g., clear doubts of
participants who are using IPD, provide a good
physical climate for team collaboration) (Klein &
Sorra, 1996)

1.5 Trust

Facilitate interdependencies between
interorganizational groups (Parmigiani & RiveraSantos, 2011)
Project team members believe each other (AIA, AIA
Minnesota, & School of Architecture—University of
Minnesota, 2012)

2.1 Commitment

Project participants' willingness to devote time,
resources, and energy to IPD process (Klein & Sorra,
1996).

1.4 Coordination
mechanisms

2. Values Fit

3.3 Challenge

How host organization's throughput or organizing
processes will match IPD's interactive and integrative
principles (Korkmaz, Miller & Sun, 2012).
Project team members vigilantly scan " internal and
external environments for information or events that
might influence the project" (Korkmaz et al., 2012) and
point out problems (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam,
2010)
Project team members at management level act
cooperatively to resolve differences, communicate with
other groups, and seek to buffer project from external
forces (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson et al.,
2010)
Project team members suggest new ways of completing
work and contribute to new ideas (Morgeson et al.,
2010)

3.4 Negotiate

Members spend time discussing issues and use
tradeoffs/concessions to devise workable
solutions(Meiners & Miller, 2004)

2.2 Culture fit

3.1 Monitor

3.
Communication
3.2 Manage

4.
Implementation
Effectiveness

4.1 Commitment
to IPD process
4.2 Problem
addressed
4.3 Adequate
progress

Project participants' willingness to devote time,
resources, and energy to IPD projects in future
(Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997)
Problems addressed in project by implementing IPD
(Tjosvold, Wedley & Field, 1986)
Project is on or ahead of schedule during construction
process (i.e., milestone activity is finished on time)
(Korkmaz et al., 2012)

6

Table 1 (cont’d)
5. Innovation
Effectiveness

5.1 Project
quality

"owner's level of satisfaction with the project
characteristics" (Korkmaz, Riley, & Horman, 2010)

5.2 Cost

Cost performance of project (Korkmaz et al., 2010)

5.3 Schedule
5.4 Change order

5. Innovation
Effectiveness

Schedule performance of project
Number of change orders
Safety issues (i.e., accident, labor injury) occurred on
5.5 Safety
job site
5.6 Participants'
Positive response from major project participants in
satisfaction
terms of IPD implementation
Sustainable features and/or goals of LEED green
building rating system ( Brundtland Commission, 1987;
5.7 Sustainability USGBC, 2012)

Then content analysis is conducted based on the “IPD Case Study” report (AIA et al., 2012)
including 12 successful IPD projects. Each case study is reviewed and the project performance is
assessed by employing the evaluation system. Common patterns of those projects related to
model constructs and communication mechanisms are identified via the cross-case synthesis
approach.

Meanwhile a case study called Project B, in which the project team fails to implement IPD, is
conducted. The researcher has access to formal and informal communication records, including
face-to-face meetings, conference calls, and email exchanges during the project delivery process
to collect longitudinal data for this case study. Longitudinally collected ethnographic case study
data and structured interviews with team members enable an in-depth analysis of study
constructs via comparisons to the content analysis results.

To ensure quality in the case study, four tests are applied: construct validity, internal validity,
external validity, and reliability (Yin,2003). The researcher collects data via multiple paths (i.e.,
7

various project team member interviews and longitudinal project data) and has informants review
their own interview transcripts to establish construct validity. The study uses pattern-matching
strategy and cross-case synthesis to ensure internal validity. For external validity, a wellformulated model (Klein & Sorra, 1996) is adopted, mainly to design study metrics and analyze
the case study. To guarantee reliability in the data collection process, a case study database is
established to make sure the study process is repeatable and also reliable (Yin, 2003). In
addition, another researcher is involved to conduct the reliability check during the data analysis
process to strengthen data reliability.

Three questions investigated in this study are listed below:
1. Is Klein and Sorra’s innovation implementation model (1996) applicable to
understanding of AEC team processes of IPD implementation?
2. Which factors foster IPD implementation as an innovation in AEC project teams?
3. What role does communication play in innovation implementation and how does it fit
Klein and Sorra’s model (1996) in relation to constructs of climate and innovation-values
fit?

Finally, the researcher will compare case study results of the failed IPD project with content
analysis of successful IPD projects to identify factors influencing IPD implementation. The
propositions will provide insights about relations between climate/structure, innovation-values
fit, communication constructs, and effective innovation implementation in interorganizational
project teams.

8

1.4 Findings and Deliverables
The deliverables of this study are:
1. An evaluation system to assess the effectiveness of IPD implementation as an innovation,
2. Survey questions to collect data through structured interviews,
3. Detailed quotations and examples that support the assessment of IPD implementation,
and
4. Propositions to be tested further in follow up studies.

9

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Need for Team Integration in the AEC Industry
In the AEC industry, multiple parties with different levels of skills and various interests, in
addition to their common goal of success, form a project team (Taylor & Levitt, 2007). Those
dissimilarities make it difficult for the project’s partners to work closely with each other without
conflict of interest. Due to the adversarial nature of the traditional construction contract system,
everyone focuses only on one’s own job rather than collaborates with other team members due to
language restrictions of the contract and a lack of incentive for team integration (Forbes &
Ahmed, 2011). Matthews and Howell (2005) point to four systemic problems in traditional
construction contracts:
1. Construction parties have less input into design ideas,
2. Innovative and integrative practices are impeded,
3. Lack of coordination in the construction planning system, and
4. Subcontractor’s self-preservation mind set.

These problems expose not only the lack of collaboration on AEC teams but also the fact that it
hinders construction project success. Pocock (1997) posits that a high degree of interaction on
AEC teams as a result of integration could improve project performances, considering the factors
of cost growth, schedule growth, contract modifications, and modifications caused by design
deficiency. Korkmaz, Riley and Horman (2010) points out that design integration can improve
project performance in terms of cost, time, quality, and sustainability. Chinowsky, Diekmann,
and Gallotti (2008) emphasize the significance of social collaboration on construction project
10

teams to achieve high project performance. Swarup (2010) further highlights the influence of
communication method, collaboration, and involvement time on a project’s level of integration.

2.2 IPD as an Innovation to Address Need for Integration
Bossink (2004) points out four drivers of innovation in the construction industry: environmental
pressure, technological capability, knowledge exchange, and boundary spanning. Of those,
boundary spanning in particular represents the need for innovation to bridge the gap on
interorganizational teams and improve collaboration. So an innovation in project delivery
method, imbedded with a new contract system, is urgently needed to build a helpful environment
for team integration. Integrated project delivery (IPD) as both a project delivery method and type
of relational contract, ties the interests of major project parties together contractually with the
project’s success, which enhance collaboration of project interorganizational teams and optimize
the entire project’s performance (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011). Sive (2009) suggests there are five
drivers for IPD adoption in construction industry: (a) market demands of predictable project
outcomes relying on reliable delivery practices, (b) industry desires of effective coordination (c)
technology drivers (e.g., BIM) that improve information sharing, (d) sustainability pressure that
need interdisciplinary collaboration, and (e) collaborative working culture as a social trend. In
addition, IPD has six innovative features (AIA California Council, 2007):
1. The project team is managed by a group of major stakeholders based on open book
management. The major project participants are involved as early as the design phase,
and select the trade partners collectively. These strategies improve transparency of
project management and enhance trust among interorganizational teams, which in turn
provide a good environment for close collaboration.

11

2. During the design process, certain innovative strategies such as design charrettes, target
value design, and set-based design are adopted to allow major project participants to
work together on improving constructability of the design and promoting efficiency and
reliability in the design process. In this phase, the contractor is involved earlier and
integrates with the designer’s team to control costs and eliminate the extra procedure of
checking constructability.
3. A risk pool is established to release each party from liability and reduce both their
individual risk as well as that of the whole project. The risk pool ties the profits of major
project participants together and links it to the project success, which encourages all
project participants to interact actively and collaborate with each other to reach their
common goals.
4. Performance compensation and behavior compensation are used to encourage
participants to commit to the project. When project participants are willing to devote
time, resources, and energy to the IPD project, obstacles for collaboration and integration
are reduced.
5. A good environment for application of information sharing technologies such as Building
Information Modeling (BIM) and project documentation management software is
provided to enhance the communication process.
6. Relational contracts are employed to improve reliability of the integration.

In applying this innovative approach so that it will contribute to an individual project’s success,
it is critical to understand how to apply innovation in organizations overall.

12

2.3 Innovation Implementation in Interorganizational Project Teams
In this section, the literature related to innovation concepts, innovation implementation models,
and other contributive factors related to innovation implementation are summarized.

Innovation broadly refers to ideas, processes, or products perceived to be new by individuals or
organizations (Rogers 1995; Slaughter 1998). It is significant in the technology, organization,
and economic development of many industries. Process-type innovations not only enhance
existing workflow practices (Vakola & Rezgui 2000), but also lead to novel and even
breakthrough products, so it is particularly valuable for organizations. In a world of rapid
commoditization, fast pacing, and fierce international competition, innovation is the only
sustainable source of growth, competitive advantage, and new wealth that can keep an
organization vibrant (Harris 2003). In the AEC industry, technology innovations such as BIM
improve team collaboration by providing advanced tools (Azhar, Nadeem, Mok & Leung, 2008).
Organizational and contractual innovations can also foster team collaboration by diminishing
personal social obstacles such as cultural boundaries (Davis & Songer, 2009) and owner-driven
natures (Arditi, Kale, & Tangkar, 1997). Because every participant of the construction project
contributes different skills to the whole team, it is essential to motivate them to adapt, integrate,
learn, and accept innovative ideas (Chinowsky & Taylor, 2007).

According to Rogers (1995), there are three general phases in the process of innovation diffusion
into organizations: initiation, adoption, and implementation. During the initiation process, an
organization realizes the problem, looks for solutions, finds existing innovations, identifies the fit
ones, and further chooses to adopt some particular ones. In the adoption phase, the senior

13

management level decides to adopt one innovation proposed in the initiation phase, and then
assigns it to lower level team members (Klein & Sorra, 1996). During the implementation phase,
the innovation is appropriately applied in the organization after members have committed to it.
Christensen & Overdorf (2000) point out that leadership’s perceptions of organizational resource
and values, along with the viability of existing mechanisms and products, are the main drivers of
the innovation application process. Klein & Sorra (1996) speculate that in organizations applying
innovation, failure during the innovation implementation process is the main reason for failure to
achieve benefits from the innovative processes or equipment. They identify the main factors
influencing innovation implementation effectiveness and develop a model to illustrate the
process.

Klein and Sorra (1996) point out that proper organizational climate for innovation
implementation and the fit between innovation and organization value are necessary for the
effective implementation of innovation. Figure 2 illustrates how, in a good climate for
implementation, team members have essential skills to manage and participate in the innovation,
identify the incentives to promote and disincentives to remove, and eliminate the structural and
procedural obstacles to innovation implementation. Furthermore, a high innovation-values fit
will motivate team members to be more committed to the implementation of innovation. These
two factors address the problem in implementation effectiveness and further optimize the
benefits of bringing innovation to the project.

14

Figure 2 Innovation Implementation Model (Klein and Sorra, 1996)

2.4 Role of Communication in Innovation Implementation and Team Integration
The two factors proposed by Klein and Sorra (1996) are essential but not sufficient to ensure the
successful implementation of innovation and the benefits it can add. In an analysis of successful
and failed design/manufacturing relationship innovations, Adler (1995) finds it necessary to have
intensive coordination among interorganizational team members to develop effective alternative
plans and to solve unforeseen problems and disputes. Adler also emphasizes that more
coordination is needed as the processes or product results become more complicated.
Furthermore, Lewis (2007) highlights the idea that a true “buy-in” of stakeholders requires the
communication skills of change agents, who have to tailor messages they send to each
stakeholder to ensure their effectiveness. To achieve the buy-in of stakeholders in innovation
application, a consensus among the parties of the interorganizational team is needed, which can

15

be achieved through low efficiency meetings that emphasis equal participation (Lewis, Hamel &
Richardson, 2001). They also point out that imposing the idea on stakeholders through a sales
blitz is not an effective way to achieve true consensus. Similarly, Higgs and Rowland (2011)
observe that message framing behaviors and evidence of supportiveness by organization leaders
are necessary to promote the interorganizational teams expect to collaborate but who hesitate to
do so. During the collaboration process, team performance is not satisfactory when it relates to
coalitions, informal status displays, respect by representatives for each other’s goals and
processes, holding others accountable for failure to meet deadlines or quality expectations, or
obfuscation during decision making (Lewis, Isbell, & Koschmann, 2010). Despite the necessity
of structure/climate and values fit, these tools cannot lead to collaboration within or between
organizations. Collaboration is therefore an independent factor influencing the effectiveness of
innovation implementation.

Collaboration is also very important in the AEC industry because project participants rarely have
previous connections and it is challenging to get to know one another and cooperate closely in a
short period of time. Chinowsky, Diekmann, and Gallotti (2008) argue that project success
requires both management of technical components (e.g., schedule, task, resource) and effective
collaboration among project participants. Particularly in the AEC industry, the integration and
communication of owners, designers, contractors, and suppliers at the interorganization level are
as important as for those at the intraorganization level (Pekericli, Akinci, & Karaesmen, 2003).

The interaction manners between members within an organization or among different
organizations of a team can impact the success or failure of a project (Di Marco et al., 2010;

16

Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson, DeReu, & Karam 2010). Nofera, Korkmaz, & Miller
(2011) show evidence that communication mechanisms relating to conflict management and
information flow monitoring play an important role in IPD implementation. The preliminary
results of IPD Case Studies (AIA et al., 2012) indicate that both a good climate due to the
execution of a series of strategies and a high level of collaboration brought about by close team
interaction and communication facilitate IPD implementation. Dossick and Neff (2011) comment
that innovative communication tools such as BIM can promote team integration, communication
effectiveness, and innovation implementation.

In the AEC industry, project team sizes vary depending on project scales. As project scale
increases, information exchange among team members can become difficult and complicated due
to communication problems related to missing information, misunderstanding the message, and
confusion in responsibility distribution (Redding, 1972).

Another problem impeding communication in construction teams is the Tier boundary existing
between different levels of members (Nofera et. al., 2011). As shown in Figure 3, members on
project teams from different organizations can be categorized into three Tiers. Tier 1 members
(including owner, designer, and contractor) form the lead tier with support members who report
to them in their home organizations. For example, in a contractor’s branch, the project manager
of a general contractor (GC), as a Tier 1 member, manages the Tier 2 members who might be the
project engineers of the GC or managers of subcontractors. These people are responsible for
contacting and managing Tier 3 members, such as suppliers and subcontractors.

17

For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to
the electronic version of this thesis.
Figure 3 Project Team Roles, Sizes, and Tiers in Construction Projects (Korkmaz et al., 2012)

Three issues come to light when examining boundaries between tiers. First, varying
interpretations of tier from different members belonging to different tiers increase the difficulty
of understanding each other. Meanwhile, time and geographic differences between different tier
members complicate coordination (Poole, 2011) and communication. Second, Tier 1-3 members
become project stakeholders due to the values they create for the project (Lewis, 2007). In this
case, all stakeholders need to have their goals aligned and commit to them to make the project a
success. Finally, a coordinator is needed to keep members from different tiers on the same page
(Di Marco, Taylor, & Alin, 2010; Likert, 1961; Singh, Verbeke, & Rhoads, 1996). Furthermore,
Likert mentions that sometimes a professional coordinator is not enough; coordinators are
needed from Tier 2 and Tier 3 members. Consequently, close coordination and communication

18

are essential across organizational boundaries to implement IPD and any other innovation
effectively in such project team organizations.

Thus communication plays a significant role in improving the integration of interorganizational
teams, especially in a large scale construction project where team interaction is complicated. The
integration will further promote the innovation implementation.

2.5 Innovation Implementation Model
Based on the preliminary findings of an MSU research group regarding the climate for
implementation, the structured coordination mechanism related to the decision making process,
information sharing mechanisms, and project management plays a role in improving innovation
implementation effectiveness (Nofera, et al., 2011). As to innovation-values fit, a good cultural
fusion—including the buy-in of stakeholders and their willingness to use the innovation in the
future—has a positive influence on innovation implementation (Nofera et al., 2011). In addition,
some metrics are provided to assess the implementation effectiveness. These preliminary
findings will be further tested in this research.

Meanwhile, several metrics used in IPD Case Studies report (AIA et al., 2012) is also valuable
for this study. The report identifies five motivators—market advantage, cost predictability,
schedule predictability, risk management, and technical complexity—to evaluate the project
teams’ motivation to pursue IPD. A liability waiver and insurance for IPD, included in the report,
act as different forms of rewards and are potential factors influencing the collaborative climate of
IPD implementation. In terms of information sharing mechanisms, the following principles,

19

tools, and strategies are also highlighted in the report: financial transparency, BIM, Lean
Construction related tools, early involvement, and colocation. All of these metrics are included
and categorized under different submetrics in this study. Based on the literature review, Figure 4
shows the proposed model the researcher will use to start investigation in this study. The bolded
elements are the factors proposed by Miller and Korkmaz (2012).

The evaluation system includes five constructs—Climate/Structure, Innovation-Values Fit,
Communication Mechanisms, Innovation Implementation Effectiveness, and Innovation
Effectiveness—of which three are innovation implementation influencing factors and two are the
results of innovation implementation. The definitions of those five constructs follow.

20

Innovation Values Fit

Climate / Structure for Implementation

•
•
•
•

Skills
Incentives and disincentives
Absence of obstacles
Coordination Mechanisms
Decision Making Process
Information Sharing Patterns
Project Management

•
•

Commitment
Initial
End
Cultural Fit
Buy in
Future use

Communication Behavior
Monitoring Managing
Challenging Negotiating
•

Strategic
accuracy of
innovation
adoption

Implementation
Effectiveness
Commitment to process
Key problems addressed
Project / product quality

Innovation Effectiveness
Project / product quality compared
to pre-innovation
Diffusion of innovation

Figure 4 Proposed Innovation Implementation Model (Miller & Korkmaz, 2012) adapted from
Klein & Sorra’s (1996) model.

2.5.1 Climate
Climate, specifically indicating the innovation implementation climate of an organization, refers
to “targeted employees’ shared summary perceptions of the extent to which their use of a
specific innovation is rewarded, supported, and expected within their organization” (Klein &

21

Sorra, 1996). Structure refers to strategies and policies the organization is making to enhance the
climate of innovation implementation. The metrics for Climate are created based on three
resources. First, Klein and Sorra (1996) provide three major metrics: Team Member Skill Levels,
Rewards, and Absence of Obstacles. Second, the MSU research group emphasizes Coordination
Mechanism as also critical in forming a positive innovation implementation climate in the AEC
industry. Third, IPD Case Studies (AIA et al., 2012) highlights the idea that Trust among
interorganizational teams is important for IPD implementation. In addition, the report provides a
series of valuable metrics related to IPD. The inclusion of those metrics in the evaluation system
makes the system more effective in terms of assessing the IPD implementation as an innovation.
All metrics used under Climate are listed in Table 2, along with the description.

2.5.2 Innovation-Values Fit
Innovation-Values Fit refers to “the extent to which targeted users perceive that use of the
innovation will foster (or, conversely, inhibit) the fulfillment of their values” (Klein & Sorra,
1996). Klein and Sorra posit that team members’ commitment to innovation can reflect whether
the innovation fits the organization’s values shared by each member. In addition, Nofera,
Korkmaz, and Miller find that a good Culture Fit also indicates a good innovation-values fit
(Nofera et al., 2011). So Commitment and Culture Fit are used as metrics to assess InnovationValues Fit.

2.5.3 Communication
Communication refers to interaction among members within or between organizations to solve
22

problems, resolve disputation, and reach consensus collaboratively as a team. Effective
communication is significant to innovation implementation based on the literature review, so it is
proposed as another influencing factor in innovation implementation. Four communication
aspects demonstrated to be critical (Nofera et al., 2011) are used in this study to measure
Communication Mechanisms in IPD projects: Monitoring, Managing, Challenging, and
Negotiating.

2.5.4 Innovation Implementation Effectiveness
Innovation implementation effectiveness emphasizes “behavioral phenomenon” changes caused
by the implementation of innovation (Klein & Sorra, 1996). This construct is assessed by
Commitment to IPD process, Problem addressed, and Adequate Progress (Korkmaz et al.,
2012).

2.5.5 Innovation Effectiveness
Innovation effectiveness emphasizes the benefits achieved by implementing an innovation
successfully. The construct is evaluated by a series of metrics related to the project performance:
project quality, cost, schedule, change order, safety, participants’ satisfaction, and sustainability
(Korkmaz et al., 2010). Table 2 lists all metrics used in this study, along with their descriptions.

23

Table 2 Innovation Implementation Metrics
Metrics
1.Climate
1.1 Team member skill levels

Description

1.1.1 Major project
participants' IPD experience
1.1.1.1 Owner’s IPD
experience
1.1.1.2 Architect’s IPD
experience
1.1.1.3 General contractor’s
IPD experience
1.1.1.4 Other major
organizations’ IPD experience
1.1.2 Training

Previous experience of working on IPD project (AIA
et al., 2012).
Owner’s experience of working on IPD project

1.2.1.4 Risk management

Project has transactional risk because of specific
project conditions (i.e., project type, site) that make
risk management a critical factor (AIA et al., 2012)

Select participants with high skill levels or develop
participants' skill levels (e.g., previous experience,
training, sufficient time for learning and using
innovation) (Klein & Sorra, 1996)

Architect’s previous experience of working on IPD
project
General contractor’s previous experience of working
on IPD project
Other participants’ previous experience of working
on IPD project
Educational sessions (e.g., IPD orientation, team
building activities) provided to improve project
participants' skill in using innovation (Klein & Sorra,
1996)
1.1.3 Previous cooperation
Previous working experience with participating
experience
organizations (owners, architects, engineers, general
contractors, subcontractors) on other projects. (AIA
et al., 2012)
1.2Rewards
Motivations, financial incentives, or other beneficial
that encourage IPD implementation (AIA & AIA
California Council, 2007)
1.2.1 Motivators
Motivators that drive project participants to pursue
IPD project (AIA et al., 2012)
1.2.1.1 Market advantage
Project participants would like to market themselves
as industry leader based on their IPD experience
(AIA et al., 2012)
1.2.1.2 Cost predictability
Project has a tight budget and might be difficult to be
delivered on or under budget by using traditional
delivery method (AIA et al., 2012)
1.2.1.3 Schedule predictability Project has tight schedule and might be difficult to be
delivered on or ahead of schedule by using traditional
delivery method (AIA et al., 2012)

24

Table 2 (cont’d)
1.2.1.5 Technical complexity

1.2.1.6 Strong motivator

1.2.2 Reward structure

1.2.2.1 Incentives

1.2.2.2 Risk pool

1.2.2.3 Liability waiver

1.2.2.4 Insurance for IPD
1.3 Absence of obstacles

1.3.1 Respond to complaints
1.3.2 Remove obstacles

1.3.3 Exhibits no obstacles
1.4 Coordination mechanisms

1.4.1 Decision making system

Complicated project that needs a high level of
collaboration on expertise by multiple project parties
(AIA et al., 2012)
Any of the five motivators above, but initiator feels
IPD is only way to deliver project successfully, in
terms of difficulties encountered (AIA et al., 2012)
Incentives provided for innovation use and
disincentives adopted to avoid adverse factors for
innovation use (Klein & Sorra, 1996)
Incentives provided by owner to motivate project
participants to finish project ahead of schedule and/or
under budget and/or meeting quality requirement of
owner (AIA & AIA California Council, 2007)
Potential profits pooled from all contracting parties
except owner, who shares project risk (AIA & AIA
California Council, 2009)
Contract clauses waive claims and liability between
all contracting parties, or "no sue" clause applied to
all contracting parties (AIA & AIA California
Council, 2007)
Insurance products that is designed specifically for
IPD project (AIA & AIA California Council, 2007)
Organizations (1) respond to complaints, (2) remove
obstacles, or (3) exhibit no obstacles to IPD
implementation and function (e.g., clear doubts of
participants using IPD, provide good physical climate
for team collaboration) (Klein & Sorra, 1996)
Organizations respond to participants' complaints
actively (Klein & Sorra, 1996)
Obstacles that might hint IPD implementation are
removed to make team members participate in IPD
implementation easily (Klein & Sorra, 1996)
There are no obstacles in the IPD implementation
process (Klein & Sorra, 1996)
They
facilitate
interdependencies
between
interorganizational groups (Parmigiani & RiveraSantos, 2011)
The existence of interactive procedures that the
project team follows to make major decisions (i.e.,
whether a regular, patterned decision making
mechanism is followed and whether decisions are
made collaboratively) (Van de Van, Delbecq, &
Koenig,1976)

25

Table 2 (cont’d)
1.4.1.1 Aligned project goals
1.4.2 Information sharing
mechanisms

1.4.2.1 Financial transparency

1.4.2.2 Building Information
Modeling (BIM)
1.4.2.3 Lean Construction
Related Tools

1.4.2.3.1 Last Planner System

1.4.2.3.2 Target Value Design

1.4.2.3.3 A3

1.4.2.3.4 A4

1.4.2.3.5 Choosing by
Advantage

1.4.2.3.6 Visual management

1.4.2.3.7 Daily huddle
1.4.2.3.8 Other tools
1.4.3 Confidence in project
management

Project goals that are mutually decided upon and
agreed to by all project participants (AIA et al., 2012)
Tools that inform participants of project task
checklist completion and quality, and routine
information sharing behavior (Miller, Johnson, &
Grau, 1994)
Open book accounting that allows members at
management level to have access to information on
estimating and cost (AIA & AIA California Council,
2007)
Implementation of Building Information Modeling,
including process management and software use
(Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks, & Liston, 2008)
Tools and strategies from Lean Construction
principles, which help eliminate waste and improve
reliability of the construction process (AIA et al.,
2012)
Last Planner System (LPS), a strategy used to
improve workflow reliability (Forbes & Ahmed,
2011).
Target Value Design (TVD), a design strategy that
performs the design based on a certain estimate to
control project cost and meet owner's requirements
for design (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011)
A3 report: a document fits on a sheet of A3 paper
with fixed format to identify problems and provide
possible solutions, which helps with efficient
decision making (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011)
A4 report, a standard form used in BIM
implementation to help identify issues, root out
causes, and find solutions to issues (AIA et al., 2012).
Choosing by Advantage (CBA), a system that helps
with complex decision making by evaluating the
advantage and importance of different alternatives
(Suhr, 1999)
A management strategy that uses visual display to
improve team communication (Forbes & Ahmed,
2011).
A daily short meeting of the project team to align the
day’s goals (AIA et al., 2012).
Other tools that follow Lean Construction Principles
Project team members' confidence about success of
project and tolerance of controversy (Tjosvold et al.,
1986)

26

Table 2 (cont’d)
1.4.4 Strategies
1.4.4.1 Early involvement

1.4.4.1.1 Phase of
involvement
1.4.4.1.2 Early involvement
effectiveness
1.4.4.2 Colocation

1.5 Trust
2. Values Fit
2.1 Commitment

2.2 Culture fit

3. Communication
3.1 Monitor

3.2 Manage

3.3 Challenge

3.4 Negotiate

Strategies used to improve general climate of
innovation implementation
Involve contractor and major subcontractors in
design phase (no later than design development
phase) to perform ongoing estimating and improve
design accuracy and constructability (AIA & AIA
California Council, 2007).
Phase when general contractors and subcontractors
are involved
Function and effectiveness of early involvement
All major project participants (owner, architect,
engineers, major subcontractors) work in large open
office to improve collaboration (Ashcraft, 2011)
Project team members believe each other (AIA et al.,
2012)
Project participants' willingness to devote time,
resources, and energy to IPD process (Klein & Sorra,
1996).
How will host organization's throughput or
organizing processes match IPD's interactive and
integrative principles? (Korkmaz, et al., 2012)
Project team members vigilantly scan "internal and
external environments for information or events that
might influence the project" (Korkmaz, et al., 2012)
and point out problems (Morgeson et al., 2010)
Project team members at management level act
cooperatively to resolve differences, communicate
with other groups, and seek to buffer project from
external forces (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson
et al., 2010)
Project team members suggest new ways of
completing work and contribute to new ideas
(Morgeson et al., 2010)
Members spend time discussing issues and use
tradeoffs / concessions to devise workable solutions
(Meiners & Miller, 2004)

4. Implementation Effectiveness
4.1 Commitment to IPD
Project participants' willingness to devote time,
process
resources, and energy to IPD projects in the future
(Reichers et al., 1997)

27

Table 2 (cont’d)
4.2 Problem addressed
4.3 Adequate progress

5. Innovation Effectiveness
5.1 Project quality
5.1.1 Turnover quality
5.1.2 System quality
5.1.3 Overall quality
5.1.4 Owner's satisfaction
with cost
5.2 Cost
5.2.1 Perceived cost
performance
5.2.2 Actual cost growth
5.3 Schedule
5.3.1 Perceived schedule
performance
5.3.2 Actual schedule growth
5.4 Change order
5.5 Safety
5.6 Participants' satisfaction
5.7 Sustainability

Problems addressed in project by implementing IPD
(Tjosvold et al., 1986)
Project on or ahead of schedule during construction
process (i.e., milestone activity finished on time)
(Korkmaz et al., 2012)
The owner's degree of satisfaction with the project
characteristics (Korkmaz et al, 2010)
Difficulty of project's turnover to owner (Konchar &
Sanvido, 1998)
Quality of building system (Konchar & Sanvido,
1998)
The degree of project team's satisfaction with the
project outcomes (Korkmaz et al., 2010)
Owner's degree of satisfaction with cost performance
of project (Korkmaz et al., 2010)
Cost performance of project
Participants' perception of cost performance
(Konchar and Sanvido, 1998)
Project's actual cost performance (Konchar and
Sanvido, 1998)
Schedule performance of project
Participants' perception of schedule performance
(Konchar and Sanvido, 1998)
Project's actual schedule performance (Konchar and
Sanvido, 1998)
The exercise of a contractual power to unilaterally
direct changes in the work (AIA, 1987)
Safety issues (i.e., accident, labor injury) occurring
on job site (Korkmaz et al., 2010)
Positive response from major project participants in
terms of IPD implementation
Sustainable features and/or goals of LEED green
building rating system ( Brundtland Commission,
1987; USGBC, 2012)

The literature review above highlights the function of communication in team coordination. How
it contributes to effective innovation implementation, though, and what the relationship is
between it and implementation structure/climate and innovation-values fit will be investigated
more deeply in this study.
28

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
The literature review reveals that IPD has the innovative features that can foster team
collaboration, which is urgently needed in the current AEC industry. In addition, one study
indicates that effective innovation implementation, as the critical point of innovation success, is
related to implementation structure/climate and innovation-values fit (Klein & Sorra, 1996). The
literature indicates that collaboration and communication also play an important role in
innovation implementation, especially in complicated projects involving a variety of
organizational tiers. However, the literature is lacking in two main areas: (1) There is insufficient
evidence to assist in understanding the mechanisms of innovation implementation in the AEC
industry, and (2) Communication’s role in innovation implementation is largely unexplored. This
study will act as a stepping stone to fill that gap by responding to the following research
questions:
1. Is Klein and Sorra’s innovation implementation model (1996) applicable for
understanding the AEC teams’ processes of IPD implementation?
2. Which factors foster IPD implementation as an innovation in AEC project teams?
3. What role does communication play in innovation implementation and how does it fit
Klein and Sorra’s model (1996) in relation to climate and innovation-values fit
constructs?

29

To answer these questions, this study performs a content analysis of IPD Case Studies (AIA et
al., 2012) and an in-depth case study analysis. Figure 5 demonstrates the process map followed
in this study.

3.2 Research Objectives
The specific objectives of this research are:
1. Test Klein and Sorra’s (1996) innovation implementation model via content analysis and
describe the metrics for its constructs in the context of IPD implementation on AEC teams;
2. Explore communication mechanisms in IPD teams and their links to the Klein and Sorra
model (1996); and
3. Develop propositions to define links among innovation implementation model constructs and
communication mechanisms.

30

Figure 5 Research Process Map

31

3.3 Research Approach
There are five research approaches used in social science: experiment, survey, archival analysis,
history, and case study (Yin, 2003). Different approaches can be used to investigate different
types of research questions. Survey and archival analysis approaches can be used to examine the
research question “what.” The experiment, history, or case study approach can be used to
investigate the research question “how.” The survey approach usually needs a large sample for
statistical analysis, yet it is difficult to gain access to a large amount of IPD projects, considering
their limited number and the limited research time for this study. The researcher realizes some
IPD case studies has already been conducted by other organizations, which can provide good
material for archival analysis to identify factors influencing IPD implementation as an
innovation. Content analysis as a method of archival analysis is an appropriate and effective way
to analyze archived data. As an example, Jordan and Javernick-Will (2012) present a content
analysis of journal articles from the last 10 years focusing on disaster journals and successfully
identify the indicators of disaster recovery and resilience from the perspectives of “engineers,
social scientists, practitioners and economists.” Similarly, it is feasible for this project to perform
a content analysis of an IPD case study report to identify the factors influencing IPD
implementation via climate, innovation-values fit, and communication mechanisms.

Among the three approaches that can be used to identify the question “how,” the experiment
approach is not appropriate here because the research objects are construction projects over
which the researcher does not have control. Additionally, since the researcher can collect more
information by observing the project delivery process and interviewing project participants
instead of using historical documents, a case study is a better approach for this research.

32

Furthermore, findings from the case study can be compared with findings from content analysis.
Any common patterns will make the conclusion stronger. Taylor, Dossic, and Garvin (2011)
point out that in the construction engineering and management field, case study is an effective
approach when it provides appropriate research questions, analysis details, and validity and
reliability, all of which is explained in the data quality section. In summary, this study will use
content analysis and case study approaches to explore the answers to the research questions.

3.3.1 Choice of Research Strategy
Quantitative method relies on mathematical technique to analyze data collected through a large
number of surveys or questionnaires; qualitative method uses an approach such as interview or
ethnographic means to investigate the behavior, attitude, and experiences of participants (Dabbs,
1982). Although the quantitative method is more popular because it has a number based nature,
is easy to set up clear goals, and is less time consuming, qualitative method has its own
advantages as another valid research approach. Qualitative method can deeply interpret, analyze,
and test data to reveal a potential relationship and principles, some of which cannot be achieved
by using quantitative method (Patton, 2002).

The aim of this study is to analyze how certain attributes (e.g., structure/climate, innovation
value fit, and communication aspects) influence innovation implementation and the reasons
causing this to happen. The qualitative analysis method is helpful for discovering specific
patterns by conducting case study and content analysis. Through qualitative data analysis, the
structured interviews conducted for the case study project provide details about the performance
of the interorganizational team and problems arising during the IPD process from the
33

perspectives of the owner, the architect, and the contractor. When performing quotation analysis,
qualitative analysis enables the researcher to investigate either best practices or lessons learned,
reflected by each single quotation, and to make the number of quotations under each metric more
meaningful. This approach provides a deeper understanding of the projects that succeed or fail in
IPD implementation. Furthermore, the comparison between the features of successful IPD
projects in the content analysis and the failed project in the case study can reveal factors that
influence effective implementation of IPD, which is an advantage when applying both content
analysis and a case study approach at the same time.

3.3.2 Data Quality
To ensure the quality of the case study, four tests are employed in the design of the case study
(Yin, 2003): construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability (shown in Table
3).

As to construct validity, research data are collected from multiple project participants via
different paths (e.g., emails, meetings, interviews). The interview transcripts are sent back to the
interviewees for confirmation. Several constructs—such as the climate/structure of organization,
innovation-values fit (Klein and Sorra, 1996), and communication mechanisms—are used to
investigate the innovation implementation effectiveness in AEC project teams. Pattern matching
and cross-case synthesis are used to ensure internal validity. More specifically, cross-case
synthesis is used in the content analysis cases to identify common features of the cases; pattern
matching is used to compare content analysis results and case study results to identify the factors
that influence IPD implementation.
34

Table 3 Case Study Design Tests
Tests
Construct
Validity

Internal
Validity

Case Study Tactic
Use multiple sources
of evidence
Have key informants
review draft of case
study report
Pattern matching

Cross case synthesis

External
Validity

Use theory in single
case studies

Reliability

Develop case study
database

Action in This Study
Interview with multiple
project participants
Have interviewees review
the transcripts
Match patterns of case
study with content analysis
Identify common features
shown in different cases in
content analysis
Use one critical case to test
and extend wellformulated model
Establish a case study
documentation storing
system

Research Phase
Data Collection
Composition
Data Analysis
Data Analysis

Research Design
Data Collection

(Adapted from Yin, 2003)

As to external validity, one critical case study and twelve case study content analysis are
conducted to test Klein and Sorra’s (1996) innovation implementation model and explore a new
role of communication aspects in the model. In terms of reliability, a case study database is
developed to organize the case study documents. All raw data and coded data are saved under
certain categories (e.g., interview audio records, email communication). Furthermore, another
researcher performs a reliability check to ensure data are coded accurately without bias. To
measure reliability, the percentage of agreement is calculated. In addition, Cohen’s Kappa
(Cohen, 1960) is also used as a pilot indicator on two metrics as an example. Cohen’s Kappa
(Cohen, 1960) is an interrater reliability index used to assess level of agreement in a qualitative
study. It is considered more robust than the percentage-of-agreement method because chance
agreement is measured. Here is the formula used to calculate Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen, 1960):

35

( )

( )
( )

Where Pr (a) is the observed agreement among raters, and Pr(e) is the hypothetical probability of
chance agreement. κ equal to 1 means a complete agreement and κ equal to 0 mean there is no
agreement except for agreement by chance. In research, κ equal to 0.6 or 0.7 represents a good
reliability on agreement (Wood, 2007).

3.4 Data Collection Procedure
This section summarizes the data collection procedure in this study. Steps for establishing an
evaluating system, and data collection tools and processes are explained.

3.4.1 Metrics for Data Collection
To reach the research goal, an innovation implementation evaluation system is developed for the
IPD project content analysis and case study. The five constructs in the evaluation system are
Climate/Structure,

Innovation-Values

Fit,

Communication

Mechanisms,

Innovation

Implementation Effectiveness, and Innovation Effectiveness. There are 59 submetrics developed
under those 5 constructs, based on a variety of literature. The literature review chapter has a
detailed explanation about how the five constructs are selected and how all metrics are defined.
In addition to metrics, general project information is also collected based on the following
categories if they are available: project name, type, size, project cost, location, contract type,
project start time, initiation party, LEED certification intended, LEED certification achieved.
This information enables the cross-case synthesis to be conducted based on different
characteristics of IPD projects.
36

After all metrics are created, the next step is to identify a way to measure each metric: First, a
measuring standard is established for each of the metrics.
Then, based on that standard, three levels are created for each metric: positive, neutral, and
negative. Each level meets the standard to a different extent, with positive being the highest,
neutral in the middle, and negative the least. In other words, the positive level quotations meet
the standards strictly with the support of detailed description or examples; the neutral level
quotations either do not fully comply with the standard or have only very brief descriptions
without supporting descriptions or examples; and the negative level quotations do not meet the
standard. This evaluation system is used to categorize quotations from content analysis cases and
the case study for further analysis.
For example, the established standard for one of the metrics, “commitment,” is: to what extent
project participants are willing to devote time, resources, and energy to the IPD process. The
evaluation requirement for this metric at a “positive” level is: very willing to devote time,
resources, and energy to the IPD process. Additionally, the case needs to be supported by
description and/or examples. For a “neutral” evaluation, the researcher needs to detect: very
willing to devote time, resources, and energy to the IPD process, but without description and/or
example, or somewhat willing. For a “negative” evaluation: the researcher needs to detect
unwillingness to devote time, resources, and energy to the IPD process. If no information is
provided, the case will be put in the “not given” category under the metric of “commitment.” The
metrics description and measuring criteria table is attached in Appendix A.

37

3.4.2

Selection of Content Analysis and Case Study

Content analysis focuses on IPD project case study reports published by other organizations.
Thus, data to be collected are previous IPD case study reports. The researchers use the Internet to
search for detailed and authoritative case studies from industry or academic organizations.
Among the three case study reports located, IPD Case Studies (AIA et al., 2012) is the latest,
published in March 2012. It is developed by AIA, AIA Minnesota, School of Architecture,
University of Minnesota, and includes 12 IPD projects—the most found in all three reports—
with wide project size and geographic range. This report updates information in the five case
study report done by the same organizations in 2011, creates one more case study and includes
six case studies developed by the AIA California Council. The case studies from different
authors help to avoid subjective bias by any single author. At the same time, the case study
format is consistent, which will provide better analysis. Therefore, IPD Case Studies (AIA et al.,
2012) is used for content analysis in this study.

Regarding selection of case study, the criteria are that it should be an IPD project by contract on
which the researcher can interview project participants and collect longitudinal data for analysis.
Based on these criteria, a small scale sustainable demonstration office building project located in
a Midwest state of the United States is selected. The project team agrees to share all
communication data, including audio records and minutes of face-to-face meetings, conference
calls, and emails with the researcher, who is also able to interview four major participants of the
project. The project team decides to give up IPD, however, and use Construction Management
(CM) at risk during the detailed design phase. Four interviews are conducted right after IPD is
abandoned. In this case, findings from the case study will investigate reasons for the failure of

38

IPD implementation and further identify influencing factors in IPD implementation and any
relationships between them by comparing with the successful implementation in content
analysis.

3.4.3 Data Collection Tools
For the case study, a database is established to store and organize all data collected from the IPD
project. In the database, the researcher creates separated folders for email communication files,
meeting minute files, meeting audio record files, and interview audio record and transcript files.
For the structured interview, after collecting general information on the project (e.g., size, type,
and location) and the interviewee (e.g., position, contact information), interview questions are
developed aimed at the five constructs, based on similar metrics in the innovation
implementation evaluation system. Because the structured interview questions are developed
before the content analysis is started, metrics derived from the case study report are not included
in the questions.

For the Climate/Structure section, questions are asked about team member skill levels, reward
structures, participant obstacles, and coordination mechanisms, which include decision making
system, information sharing patterns, and confidence in project management. For the InnovationValues Fit section, questions are asked about project participants’ commitment to the project and
cultural fit (Klein & Sorra, 1996). For the Communication Mechanisms section, questions are
asked about team performance in terms of managing, monitoring, challenging, negotiating, and
integrating. For the Innovation Implementation Effectiveness section, questions are asked about

39

innovation implementation and project success (Innovation Effectiveness). Innovation
implementation includes team members’ commitment to IPD process, and the problems
addressed and progress achieved because of IPD application. Project success is assessed by
factors of project quality, cost, schedule, change order, safety, participant satisfaction, and
project sustainability. Because the case study project had not been completed, very limited
feedback is provided in terms of Innovation Effectiveness. Consequently, Implementation
Effectiveness and Innovation Effectiveness are both put under the same section, but can be
separated into independent sections for future research. The structured interview questions are
attached in Appendix B.

3.4.4 Data Collection Process
Once the researcher decides to use IPD Case Studies (AIA et al., 2012) for content analysis, the
data are in hand and ready for analysis. For the case study, data are collected via structured
interviews and ethnographic communication records. The research is approved by Institutional
Review Board (IRB) of Michigan State University before the data collection process starts. Two
types of consent forms are submitted to IRB for interview data and ethnographic data. The
interview data consent form informs the participants they will be involved in a structured
interview, lists the types of questions they will be asked, and requests permission to make an
audio recording of the interview. The ethnographic data consent form asks project participants
for permission to use communication records that might include information such as their names
and project related actions. The researcher obtains consent from participants for the entire data
collection process. These two consent forms are attached in Appendix C and Appendix D
respectively.
40

For the structured interview, the researcher schedules a time with the major project contacts (i.e.,
owner, designer, general contractor and design supplier) for face-to-face or phone interviews.
Each interview takes about one hour, during which participants answer questions about
innovation

climate/structure,

innovations-values

fit,

communication

mechanisms,

and

implementation effectiveness. The interviews are audio recorded, with participant consent. Then
the researcher transcribes the data from the audio record to written documents, which are
emailed to participants to ensure the transcripts do not change their original meaning. The
analysis does not start until participant confirmations are received.

For communication records, the researcher collects longitudinal data on one IPD project. After
receiving consent from major project participants, the researcher is copied on all email
communications among project participants and can attend and audio record all meetings and
conference calls to collect data. The researcher also has access to any meeting minutes for data
collection purposes.

3.5 Data Coding Procedure
Structured interview data and communication records data for the case study, along with content
analysis data, are coded for further data analysis. The aim of the data coding process is to quote
the contents (e.g., comments, descriptions from project participants, facts and conclusion from
case study report) of the collected data and assign them to the correct category (i.e., positive,
neutral, negative, and not given) of the metrics to which they belong.

41

The researcher uses ATLAS ti.—a qualitative data analysis software— to code data collected
from interviews and emails in the case study, and from the report for content analysis. This
procedure makes data coding and literature quoting easier and the analysis process more efficient
and accurate (ATLAS ti., 2012).
In Atlas ti., the researcher creates two families in which to save content analysis data and case
study data, establishes a coding system based on the evaluation system developed earlier, quotes
the data under each code, and assigns the level to which they belong. Figure 6 shows the
interface of Atlas ti. during the quoting process. Paragraphs on the left side are parts of the
primary document needing to be coded. The contents on the right side are codes. The vertical
bars indicate the range of the quotation that belongs to a certain code. The color of code font and
the bar are matched with each other. The researcher selects the sentences, “By feeding
information into an interactive design process, design ideas can be tested against costs. Besides
controlling costs, the TVD provided an important benefit by placing control of design and its
cost with the architect; this ensured design ideas were not unreasonably diluted or
compromised.” They are coded under the “Target Value Design” metric. Furthermore, the
researcher can mark the level to which the quote belongs in the comment area of the quotation.

3.6 Data Analysis Methods and Process
After coding, the coded quotations are exported into a Word file for a reliability check.
Percentage of agreement for all collected data is calculated, and Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen, 1960)
for two metrics are calculated as an example.

42

Figure 6 Screenshot of Atlas ti illustrating the process of coding quotations.

Quotations going through the reliability check are transformed into an Innovation
Implementation Evaluation Table in an Excel spreadsheet to calculate the scores based on the
number of quotations for each case under a certain level of certain metrics. Pattern matching and
cross-case synthesis are used to analyze the scores. First, the researcher uses pattern matching to
identify: (a) the factors influencing IPD implementation based on the score values, (b) the score
difference between the content analysis projects (i.e., the ones that successfully implemented
IPD) and the case study project (i.e., that dropped the IPD method). Based on the findings, the
researcher tests the revised Klein and Sorra (1996) model and proposes relationships between the
model constructs. Findings from an analysis of email communication records are used to support
the principal factors. Second, by using a cross-case synthesis approach, the researcher compares
the scores of those 12 successful IPD projects and highlights their common features. Propositions
are developed based on the findings from both pattern matching and cross-case synthesis.

43

3.7 Summary
Chapter 3 emphasizes the goals and objectives of this research and introduces the methodology
used—content analysis and case study. In the data collection process, project participants’ views
of IPD implementation as innovation are collected via structured interviews, and team
communication records are received. Quantitative analysis is used in for data analysis.
Meanwhile, strategies of pattern matching and cross-case synthesis are applied to ensure quality
in the research data analysis.

44

CHAPTER 4

DATA COLLECTION, CODING, AND ANALYSIS

This chapter introduces the detailed data collection, coding, and analysis process for the content
analysis and case study. Data quality measures and the reliability check process and results are
presented.

4.1 Data Collection
4.1.1 Content Analysis
The raw data for the content analysis are IPD Case Studies developed by AIA, AIA Minnesota,
School of Architecture—University of Minnesota (AIA et al., 2012). The public case study
report, which can be downloaded from the AIA website, is the latest one available, with the
largest amount of case studies published by authoritative organizations in the AEC industry. The
report includes 12 IPD projects, among which five cases are updated from 2011 by the same
organizations, one new case is added, and six cases are from the “Integrated Project Delivery:
Case Studies” report published by AIA and AIA California Council in 2010 (AIA et al., 2012).
For the five updated cases, the report includes survey results based on responses of 127
participants (AIA et al., 2012). The relatively large number of cases from different sources
increases the study’s quality. At the same time, however, it brings challenges to the analysis
process. The amount of information varies from case to case, ranging from 4 to 13 pages for each
case. This situation increases the difficulty of using the cross-case synthesis process for data
analysis. The researcher uses a formula to standardize the data to make it comparable. For data
coding purposes, the report is separated into 12 independent PDF files for convenient analysis.

45

4.1.2 Case Study
4.1.2.1 Background of the Case Study Project

The researcher interviews four participants of the construction project used as a case study in this
research. Following is a brief introduction to the project. Coded as Project B, the project is a
small scale (5400 sf.) office building located in City A in a Midwest state (State A). The owner
wants the building to be a sustainable high performance office that demonstrates the sustainable
material and technology used. The building provides space for the owner’s organization, other
tenants, and a summer university class.

The project is designed by an Architecture firm from City C in State A, which has worked with
the owner for a long time and maintains a good relationship. The contractor is a middle sized
construction company from City B in another Midwest state. The interior design supplier is a
large company in City D of State A. Among these four major participants, only the owner and
architect have previous cooperation experience. In terms of IPD experience, three participants do
not have IPD experience before this project, while the design supplier had done several IPD
project.

The architect is on board first. To reduce the project cost, the owner would like to look for
corporate contributions from suppliers. The design supplier promises to donate a large amount of
materials on condition of implementing IPD in this project. Although the owner is not familiar
with IPD, after considering the material support and the potential benefits of IPD on marketing
and project delivery, the owner agrees to use IPD in this project. Then the owner, the architect,

46

and the design supplier have a meeting and select the contractor for this project based on
qualification.

Following the design supplier’s suggestion, the owner hires an external IPD consultant and then
the team holds a two-day kick-off meeting in City B to give an IPD orientation and plan the
project delivery process as well. By the time of the kick-off meeting, however, the conceptual
design is almost completed. As an IPD project, the contractor is not involved early enough. After
the meeting, the team members are excited and want to commit to the IPD process. Now that the
project is going, however, several issues emerge and are not resolved appropriately. Around
three months after the kick-off meeting, the owner decides to quit IPD, change the contractor,
and use the construction management (CM) at risk delivery method to finish the project.

Although it does not implement IPD successfully, the project is still very valuable for
investigating the factors that influence IPD implementation and achieving the research objectives
of this study. The following sections introduce the data collection process for both the case study
and the content analysis.

4.1.2.2 Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

This study involves human subjects in structured interviews and other data collection processes
(e.g., collecting emails, audio recording of meetings), so the researcher submits an IRB
application and achieves the approval of Michigan State University’s IRB. Before the researcher
conducts the structured interview and observes and/or records the group meeting, the human

47

subjects participating in this research are asked to sign the consent form giving their permission
for collecting and using the data.

4.1.2.3 Conducting Structured Interviews

Right after the owner decides to give up IPD, the researcher schedules interviews with the four
project participants—owner, architect, contractor and design supplier. Before starting the
interview, the researcher asks for permission to audio record the interview. During each
interview, which lasts about one hour, the researcher first collects basic information about the
project and the interviewee, and then asks questions related to those five constructs—Climate,
Innovation-Values Fit, Communication Mechanisms, Innovation Implementation Effectiveness,
and Innovation Effectiveness. The methodology chapter describes how the interview questions
are developed and what questions are asked under each category. The interview with the owner
is conducted face to face and the others are done via telephone. All four interview records are
manually transcribed into text and saved as a Microsoft Word file. The files are sent back to the
interviewees to confirm that the transcripts have not changed their original meaning. All audio
and test data are stored in the case study database.

4.1.2.4 Collecting Longitudinal Data

For research purposes, the researcher also collects longitudinal data—including email copies,
records, or minutes of face-to-face meetings and conference calls—during the three-month
period when the project team implements IPD. With permission of the project team, the

48

researcher receives copies of email communications on a daily basis. By the end of the IPD
period, the researcher receives 138 emails sent among project team members. To save the record
for further data coding and analysis, the emails are organized in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
and then transferred to Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF documents.

4.2 Data Coding for Content Analysis and Case Study
After the researcher finishes collecting the data for content analysis and the case study, the data
coding process starts. The objectives of data coding in this study are (1) quoting the information
found in the collected data, which is related to the metrics developed for innovation
implementation assessment, (2) link them to the relevant metrics, and (3) categorize them to the
performance level (i.e., Positive, Neutral, Negative, and Not Given).

To achieve the objectives efficiently, the researcher uses Atlas ti.—a qualitative data analysis
software—to code the data. In Atlas ti., all information about one project is stored in a project
file called Hermeneutic Unit (HU). Under each HU, there are six subunits with different
functions: families, primary documents, codes, network, quotes, and memos. Figure 7 illustrates
this study’s data coding process in Atlas ti. Families allows the user to group the documents or
codes of the same category. Two document families are established for this study: Content
Analysis and Case Study. Primary documents is the space to store all data documents for a
project. The researcher adds 12 case documents under the Content Analysis family, and 4
interview transcripts documents and the email communication record under the Case Study
family. Under the Code function, a series of metrics is created to categorize quotations. To help
understand the hierarchical levels of the metric system, the researcher establishes a metric

49

network to clearly identify the level and position a particular metric belongs to. In total, there are
59 metrics achieving quotations directly without any submetrics under them. Quotes is where
quotations are saved. The researcher reads the content, selects sentences or paragraphs, and
assigns them to the metrics to which they are related. Then those sections are saved as quotations
under Quotes. For each quotation, the researcher adds category level information as comments
based on predefined standards. The Memo function, in which users can take notes as reminders,
is not actively used in this study. If one quotation is related to several metrics at the same time, it
will be quoted under all those quotations. After finishing the entire quoting and categorizing
process, the data coding under Atlas ti. is complete. The researcher exports the quotations to text
files for reliability check and data analysis.

50

Hermeneutic
Unit in Atlas ti.

Data Coding Process of this Study

Families

Content Analysis

Primary
Documents

+

12 Case
Documents

Case Study

1 Email
Communication
Record

+
Codes

Network

Quotes
(Comments)

4 Interview
Transcripts

59 Metrics

Metric Relationship

1222 Quotations

Memos

+
+

4 Categories

Figure 7 Data Coding Process in Atlas ti.

In the exported document, Atlas ti. provides document, quotation numbers, and a location code
for each quotation so the researcher can easily track the source of the data with or without Atlas
ti. To maintain data confidentiality, all personal and sensitive information (e.g., people’s name,
company name, location, etc.) in the case study export documents is coded.
The following example demonstrates the procedure described above.

51

1. The researcher reads the transcript document from the interview, with the general contractor
added under Case Study Family and finds the following sentence talking about good trust
existing in the project team:

“There was absolutely no lack of trust among the team members. (Name of owner’s project
manager) does extremely well. I wouldn’t say that I trust anyone any more or any less.”

2. The researcher selects it, codes it as “Trust,” and puts “G” in the comment area representing
the “Positive” level. The level name is modified from “Good” to “Positive” after the data coding
process. Similarly, “Poor” is modified to “Negative,” while “Neutral” is kept the same. After
exporting the document and coding the sensitive information, the quotation is presented as
following:

“P16: Structured interview with Contractor .pdf - 16:21 [There was absolutely no lack o..]
(7:2481-7:2624) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
No memos
There was absolutely no lack of trust among the team member. OPM1 does extremely well. I
wouldn’t say that I trust anyone any more or any less.
Comment:
G”

52

The quotation means that the author “Super” (default name) codes the sentence as a “Positive”
level under the metric “trust” and it is Quotation #21 located on the seventh page of Primary
Document 16 “Structured interview with Contractor,” a PDF file. As can be seen, the name is
coded as “OPM1” (owner’s project manager #1).

4.3 Data Quality
These sections describe several methods the researcher uses to reduce error, avoid bias, and
increase data coding reliability.

4.3.1 Reducing Sampling Error
This study uses cases with large diversity in both content analysis and case study in an effort to
reduce the bias caused by sampling. The 12 IPD projects included in the report for content
analysis are located in 11 cities of 9 states distributed evenly across the United States. The
project sizes range from 878,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet. The cases also cover different
building types—including healthcare facility, office building, higher education building, and
government project—within the scope of new construction, building extension, and interior
renovation. The location of the case study project is also different from those of the cases above.
The high diversity of the cases builds the foundation of a convincible conclusion.

4.3.2 Avoiding Respondent Bias
To avoid respondent bias, the researcher collects data from various sources. For content analysis,
the 12 cases are written by two different organizations; for case study, the researcher interviews
53

4 project participants and collects email communication among 30 individuals. Multiple data
sources provide more comprehensive data and avoid the bias caused by using a single data
source.

4.3.3 Performing Reliability Check
After completing the data coding process in Atlas ti., another researcher (Researcher 2) helps the
first researcher (Researcher 1) to perform the reliability check. Researcher 1 is a graduate student
in construction management, who is knowledgeable about construction management strategies
and the IPD implementation process; Researcher 2 is a graduate student studying organizational
communication, who is familiar with communication and interaction mechanisms of
organizations.
Because of time limitations, Researcher 2 reviews the coded documents finished by Researcher
1, rather than coding the quotations independently, and compares the results. Then the two
researchers discuss the quotations on which they have conflicts. The basic rules followed in the
disagreement resolution are to express their understanding of the quotation and explain the
reasons why they want to keep or change the current coding based on the standard defined for
each metric in the innovation implementation assessment system.

After discussion, the

researchers reach consensus on all disagreements, of which there are six types:
1. Add more content for a quotation (quotation level);
2. Delete content part or the whole quotation (quotation level);
3. Change performance level within a metric (metric level);
4. Add more metric(s) for a quotation (metric level);
5. Delete metric(s) for a quotation (metric level) and
54

6. Change metric category of quotation (metric level).
Quotation level disagreements focus on whether or not the contents should be quoted, while
metric level disagreements focus on which metrics the quotations should be categorized under. In
total, there are 24 disagreements on 1025 quotation level quotations (since every quotation is
different), which means the percentage of agreement is 97.7% under the quotation level. At the
metric level, there are 257 disagreements on 1226 metric level quotations. Quotations belonging
to multiple metrics are counted as the number of metrics to which they belong, which means the
percentage of agreement is 79.0% at this level.

As mentioned in the methodology chapter, Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen, 1960) is a more robust way
to measure the reliability in qualitative analysis because it considers the possibility that the
agreements are reached by chance. Besides the general information categories, there are 59 basic
level metrics, each of which has three levels. Theoretically, in this case, there are 177
possibilities for coding each quotation, a number so large as to be unrealistic to calculate. So the
researchers decide to choose two pairs of metrics about which they have the most or moderate
disagreement, and calculate Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen, 1960) for that specific situation to
demonstrate the application of Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen, 1960) and check reliability from a
different angle.

The researchers decide to choose “culture fit” for the first situation and “last planner system” for
the second situation. They count the number of quotations on which they agree belong and do
not belong to a certain metric, and the number of quotations on which they disagree belong and
do not belong to the same metric. Then the researchers perform the same process for both the

55

“culture fit” metric and the “last planner system” metric. After calculation, Cohen’s Kappa
(Cohen, 1960) on “culture fit” is 0.91, and 1 on “last planner system.” Considering the results of
both percentage of agreement and Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen, 1960), in general, the coding results
have a high reliability.

The reliability check provides not only the measurement for data coding reliability, but also
increases the reliability by using revised quotations after making the changes agreed upon by
both researchers.

4.4 Data Analysis for Content Analysis and Case Study
Continuing from the reliability check descripted in the last chapter, the data analysis process
aims to find out the quantity of the quotations and employ an appropriate scoring system to
assess the performance of each project under the constructs. Figure 8 demonstrates the general
process of data coding and data analysis.

Data
Coding

Data
Analysis

Identify
quotations

Count
quotations

Assign to
metrics

Calculate
score

Figure 8 Data Coding and Data Analysis Process

56

Categorize to
certain levels

Reliability
Check

IPD implementation
evaluation system

4.4.1 Quotation Quantity Management
After the reliability check, the researcher transfers all quotations into an Excel spreadsheet,
where each quotation is stored in the specific cell based on the project it comes from and the
level of certain metric it belongs to. Figure 9 is a snapshot of the Excel spreadsheet. Metrics are
listed vertically and projects are listed horizontally, each of which has four different categories
(i.e., positive, neutral, negative, and not given) under. Each cell is coded to distinguish them
from one another easily. Cells for the “positive” level are green, “neutral” are yellow, “negative”
are red, and “not given” are blue.

57

Metrics

Project 2
Negative

Positve
Neutral
P 6: 02 MERCY
Facility Master
Plan Remodel.pdf 6:50 [The Project
Management team
wa..] (6:16986:1893) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
[training]
No memos
The Project
1.1.2 Training Management team
was tasked with
educating, training
Metric
and managing the
Implementation
team,
ensuring that the
entire team
adhered to the
principles of
Integrated Project
Delivery.

Not Given

Categories

Quotation

Figure 9 Snap shot of Quotation Management Excel Sheet

For instance, the researcher has a quotation below:
“P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:50 [The Project Management team wa..]
(6:1698-6:1893) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [training]
No memos

58

The Project Management team was tasked with educating, training and managing the
implementation team, ensuring that the entire team adhered to the principles of integrated
Project Delivery.”

Because this quotation from Project 2 of the content analysis is coded on a “positive” level under
both “training” and “manage,” the researcher puts it in the cell for Project 2’s positive “training”
quotations. The same quotation will also be placed in the corresponding cell for “manage.”

After transferring all quotations for the content analysis and case study to an Excel spreadsheet,
the next step is removing repetitive information. The data coding process is responsible only for
identifying and categorizing quotations, so it is possible the same content is mentioned several
times in different quotations. Since it is necessary to remove the repetitive data, every quotation
has different meanings even though there are several quotations under the same level of metric.
For content analysis, there are two situations in terms of the metrics: (1) reflecting a fact that can
be answered easily by “Yes” or “No”(e.g., team member’s IPD experience) and (2) reflecting the
project participants’ perception of the project performance, which is assessed by extent (e.g.,
culture fit). In the first situation, as long as there is at least one quotation under a certain level,
quantity is counted as “1.” For example, five quotations mention the IPD experience of the
general contractor in Project 1 positively, so they count only as 1. In the second situation, every
quotation is counted, as long as it does not reflect the metric from exactly the same angle as other
quotations. For example, in Project 2, among all three quotations under “manage” –“neutral,”
two mention the three-level team structure, so the total number of quotations counts as 2. For
Project B used as a case study in situation two, if quotations with repetitive information come

59

from different interviewees, all of them are counted because they represent the perception of
different project participants. Based on the principles above, the quotations are counted and the
result is shown in Appendix E.

Based on the quotation quantity of the content analysis and case study, the researcher plots a
diagram (Figure 10) to illustrate the quotation quantity under each construct. The blue line with a
diamond mark represents the total quotation quantity of content analysis, the red line with a
square mark represents the average quotation quantity of content analysis, and the green line
with a triangle mark represents the quotation quantity of Project B for the case study. The
vertical axis represents the number of quotations and the horizontal axis represents the metric
numbers. The metric name each number represents is listed in Table 4 (e.g., M 1 represents the
metric “owner’s IPD experience”). Comparing the quotation quantities of the content analysis
and case study, the total number of quotations for the 12 projects in the content analysis is much
larger than for Project B in the case study on most metrics. The number of quotations per project
in the content analysis, however, is similar to that for Project B. On some metrics,—such as
“remove obstacles” (M 18), “culture fit” (M 39), and “commitment” (M 40)—Project B has
more quotations than the average number in the content analysis. In addition, Table 4 indicates
that quotations are not distributed evenly among all metrics. For example, in the content analysis,
metrics such as “BIM” (M 24), “commitment” (M 40), and “manage” (M 42) have more
quotations. Similarly, in the case study, “remove obstacles” (M 18), “commitment” (M 40), and
“manage” (M 42) have more quotations. Therefore, an evaluation system is necessary to
calculate standardized scores so that project performance can be assessed without the impact of
quotation distribution. The “Score Calculation” section will introduce a formula to solve this

60

problem. As to the quantity of quotations located in each construct, the diagram shows that for
both the content analysis and the case study, the influencing constructs—climate, innovationvalues fit and communication mechanism—appear in large numbers among the quotations, while
the performance constructs—implementation effectiveness and innovation effectiveness—have
far fewer quotations. The small quantity of the performance constructs might make it difficult to
identify patterns in cross-case synthesis analysis.

61

Figure 10 Quotation Distribution per Each Construct for Content Analysis and Case Study

62

Table 4 IPD Implementation Evaluation Metric Index
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Metrics
1.1.1.1 Owner’s IPD experience
1.1.1.2 Architect’s IPD experience
1.1.1.3 General Contractor’s IPD
experience
1.1.1.4 Other major organizations’ IPD
experience
1.1.2 Training
1.1.3 Previous Cooperation Experience

#
31
32
33

Metrics
1.4.2.3.6 Visual management
1.4.2.3.7 Daily huddle
1.4.2.3.8 Other Tools

34

1.4.3 Confidence in project management

35
36

1.2.1.1 Market Advantage
1.2.1.2 Cost Predictability
1.2.1.3 Schedule Predictability
1.2.1.4 Risk Management
1.2.1.5 Technical Complexity
1.2.1.6 Strong Motivator
1.2.2.1 Incentives
1.2.2.2 Risk Pool
1.2.2.3 Liability Waiver
1.2.2.4 Insurance for IPD
1.3.1 Respond to complaints
1.3.2 Remove Obstacles
1.3.3 Exhibits no obstacles
1.4.1 Decision making system
1.4.1.1 Aligned Project Goals
1.4.2 Information sharing mechanisms
1.4.2.1 Financial Transparency
1.4.2.2 Building Information Modeling
(BIM)
1.4.2.3 Lean Construction Related
Tools
1.4.2.3.1 Last Planner System
1.4.2.3.2 Target Value Design
1.4.2.3.3 A3
1.4.2.3.4 A4
1.4.2.3.5 Choosing by Advantage

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

1.4.4.1.1 Phase of Involvement
1.4.4.1.2 Early Involvement
Effectiveness
1.4.4.2 Colocation
1.5 Trust
2.1 Commitment
2.2 Culture fit
3.1 Monitor
3.2 Manage
3.3 Challenge
3.4 Negotiate
4.1 Commitment to IPD process
4.2 Problem Addressed
4.3 Adequate Progress
5.1.1 Turnover Quality
5.1.2 System Quality
5.1.3 Overall Quality
5.1.4 Owner's satisfaction to cost
5.2.1 Perceived Cost Performance
5.2.2 Actual Cost Growth
5.3.1 Perceived Schedule Performance

55

5.3.2 Actual Schedule Growth

56
57
58
59

5.4 Change Order
5.5 Safety
5.6 Participants' Satisfaction
5.7 Sustainability

To identify the quotation quantity of different levels, another two diagrams (as shown in Figure
11 and 12) are plotted for the content analysis and the case study, respectively. Figure 11

63

indicates that for content analysis, most metrics appear in the largest numbers among the positive
quotations, less-neutral quotations and least-negative quotations. The horizontal axis represents
the metrics (metric names are listed in Table 4) and the vertical axis represents the quotation
quantity based on the content analysis.

80
70

Positive Quotations
Neutral Quotations
Negative Quotations

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
Figure 11 Quantity of Different Level Quotations in the Content Analysis

However, for the case study, as shown in Figure 12 (metric names for the horizontal axis are
listed in Table 4), the number of neutral and negative quotations are higher than those of the
positive quotations on many metrics. In addition, there are very limited quotations for the two

64

performance constructs (Metric 45-59), which indicates that Project B does not perform very
well on Climate, Innovation-Values Fit, and Communication constructs composed of potential
influencing factors (Metric 1-44).

18
16
14

Positive Quotations
Neutral Quotations
Negative Quotations

12
10
8
6
4
2

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
Figure 12 Quantity of Different Level Quotations in Case Study

For projects in both the content analysis and the case study, it is difficult to identify clearly the
project’s performance on each metric due to the quotation quantity difference among the metrics.
Therefore, standardized scores are calculated and in Chapter 5, the researcher will analyze the

65

project performance on the metrics for the content analysis projects and the case study project
more thoroughly.

4.4.2 Score Calculation
After organizing the quotation quantity, the researcher uses the formula below to standardize
assessment of the IPD implementation performance:

(

)

Where S is score achieved, a is number of positive quotations, b is number of neutral quotations,
and c is number of negative quotations.

The formula uses 2 points as baseline and assigns 3 points to positive quotations, 2 points to
neutral quotations, and 1 point to negative quotations. It turns the quotation quantity under each
metric into a score range from 0.5 to 1.5, which avoids the uncertain score range caused by
various numbers of quotations, making the score comparable among metrics and projects. If
there is no quotation for a certain metric (i.e., a = b = c = 0), the denominator will become zero
and the formula will not be applicable. In this situation where information is missing, 1 point is
assigned to the project on that specific metric, assuming that the project has a neutral
performance on that metric.

Based on this score system, for a particular metric, if a project achieves 1, it means that the
project performs neutral on that metric; if the score is from 1 to 1.5, it means the project
performance is good on that metric; if the score is from 0.5 to 1.5, it means the project

66

performance is poor on that metric. In sum, the higher the score is, the better the project
performs.

What makes the situation complicated is the setting of neutral quotations. When the number of
positive quotations is larger than the number of negative quotations, the inclusion of neutral
quotations decreases the score. When the number of positive quotations is smaller than the
number of negative quotations, the inclusion of neutral quotations increases the score.

There are two different approaches to treat the neutral quotations—including neutral quotations
and excluding neutral quotations. Each approach has its advantage in different situations. In the
following paragraphs, two hypothetical examples are provided to demonstrate the two situations.
First, it is reasonable to include neutral quotations because, when taken together with other
quotations, they illustrate the comprehensive performance of a project, especially when there are
decent among of quotations.

For example, as shown in Table 5, Project X has five positive quotations, three neutral quotations,
and two negative quotations; Project Y has five positive quotations, zero neutral quotations, and
two negative quotations. If neutral quotations are considered, Project X’s score (1.15) is lower
than Project Y’s score (1.21) because it achieves only 50% of positive quotations compared to
Project Y’s 71.4%. If neutral quotations are excluded, the scores of the two projects will each be
1.21, which does not show the influence of neutral quotations on the overall project performance
of a specific metric.

67

Table 5 Comparison of including and excluding neutral quotations (1)
Situations

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Project X
Project Y

5
5

3
0

2
2

Score
(Including Neutral)
1.15
1.21

Score
(Excluding Neutral)
1.21
1.21

Second, excluding neutral quotations also has value, considering the fact that some metrics have
limited quantities of quotations for the calculation. For example, as shown in Table 6, Project X
has three positive quotations, one neutral quotation, and zero negative quotations; Project Y has
one positive quotation, zero neutral and negative quotations. Although Project X has more
positive quotations than Project Y, its score (1.38) is lower than Project Y’s score (1.50) due to
the one neutral quotation it has. It can still be explained as Project Y has a higher percentage in
terms of the positive quotation quantity, however—for this study, under some extreme situations
where the quotation numbers are very low—this score cannot reflect the performance accurately.
Excluding neutral will make Project X and Project Y both achieve 1.5, which can mitigate the
inaccuracy of the score.

Table 6 Comparison of including and excluding neutral quotations (2)
Situations

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Project X
Project Y

3
1

1
0

0
0

Score
(Including Neutral)
1.38
1.50

Score
(Excluding Neutral)
1.5
1.5

Based on the example, the “including neutral quotations” approach has a larger scope of
application than the “excluding neutral quotations” approach. Furthermore, if the quotation
quantity for a specific metric is extremely small, the score calculated is less important and the
conclusion drawn from that score is less convincing. So the research won’t focus on those scores.

68

Therefore, the limitations of the first approach are further reduced. Consequently, in this study
the researcher calculates the score under both situations but only continues in the first situation—
including neutral quotations—to analyze further and to generate findings. Scores for both the
content analysis and the case study are calculated and attached in Appendix F. The score
calculation and analysis for the other situation is attached in Appendix G.

4.5 Summary
This chapter introduces data collection, coding and analysis processes, and methods to improve
data quality. The author gives some background for the content analysis projects and the case
study project. After introducing Project B as the case study, the author describes how to conduct
structured interviews and gather email communication data for the case study. The data coding
process presents detailed steps for coding the data for the content analysis and case study. Then
the author mentions three strategies to ensure data quality. Finally, the data analysis section
introduces quotation counting and score calculation. The next chapter will focus on the findings
achieved based on the data analysis.

69

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS

Chapter 5 presents two of the three deliverables in this study: (1) an IPD implementation
evaluation system and (2) supporting quotations and examples for the system. The researcher
will describe the findings obtained from the content analysis and the case study. A series of
factors influencing IPD implementation is identified. Observations of email records and meeting
minutes further support the findings.

5.1 Content Analysis Findings
5.1.1 Overview
The report used for content analysis focuses more on the implementation process of IPD, rather
than on the results of project performance. In the report, all projects are described in terms of
“legal and commercial strategies,” “management strategies,” “social strategies,” and “workplace
and technological strategies” used to improve IPD implementation. According to the report,
generally among all 12 projects, these strategies enhance team collaboration and make the
project delivery process more efficient than other project delivery methods. Therefore, although
some projects are still under construction and there is relatively less information about the
project performance in terms of such things as cost, schedule, quality, or safety for most projects,
all of them are considered to have implemented IPD successfully.

70

As to contracts for these projects, nine out of twelve projects use a relational contract. Three
projects are not able to use it because of local government regulations or the owner’s restrictions.
Despite the lack of legal strategies, the project teams implement IPD successfully by
strengthening other strategies.

5.1.2 Score Performance of Metrics
The researcher calculates the average score of all content analysis projects to identify the average
performance of successful IPD projects on each metric. The average score per metric is listed in
Table 7, with metrics recorded in two categories: influencing constructs (i.e., climate,
innovation-values fit, and communication mechanisms) and performance constructs (i.e.,
implementation effectiveness and innovation effectiveness). Metrics are ranked by ascending
order of the scores. The metric numbers are given for the convenience of checking scores in
Figure 13, presented in Chapter 6. In influencing constructs, the top five metrics on which the
projects achieve high scores (based on at least 20 quotations for each metric) are: information
sharing mechanisms, decision making system, manage, early involvement effectiveness, and
previous cooperation experience. This finding means the 12 projects perform well on these five
metrics on average.

Table 7 Average Score of Content Analysis Projects per Metric
Influencing Constructs
No.
22
20
42
36

Metrics
1.4.2 Information sharing mechanisms
1.4.1 Decision making system
3.2 Manage
1.4.4.1.2 Early involvement effectiveness

71

Score*
1.43
1.42
1.34
1.34

Table 7 (cont’d)
6 1.1.3 Previous cooperation experience
35 1.4.4.1.1 Phase of involvement
23 1.4.2.1 Financial transparency
10 1.2.1.4 Risk management
7 1.2.1.1 Market advantage
21 1.4.1.1 Aligned project goals
24 1.4.2.2 Building Information Modeling (BIM)
12 1.2.1.6 Strong motivator
18 1.3.2 Remove obstacles
5 1.1.2 Training
38 1.5 Trust
44 3.4 Negotiate
41 3.1 Monitor
40 2.2 Culture fit
8 1.2.1.2 Cost predictability
9 1.2.1.3 Schedule predictability
13 1.2.2.1 Incentives
43 3.3 Challenge
33 1.4.2.3.8 Other tools
26 1.4.2.3.1 Last Planner System
31 1.4.2.3.6 Visual management
32 1.4.2.3.7 Daily huddle
14 1.2.2.2 Risk pool
27 1.4.2.3.2 Target Value Design
17 1.3.1 Respond to complaints
19 1.3.3 Exhibits no obstacles
28 1.4.2.3.3 A3
30 1.4.2.3.5 Choosing by Advantage
37 1.4.4.2 Collocation
29 1.4.2.3.4 A4
39 2.1 Commitment
1 1.1.1.1 Owner’s IPD experience
3 1.1.1.3 General Contractor’s IPD experience
4 1.1.1.4 Other major organizations’ IPD experience
11 1.2.1.5 Technical complexity
34 1.4.3 Confidence in project management
15 1.2.2.3 Liability waiver
25 1.4.2.3 Lean Construction Related Tools
2 1.1.1.2 Architect’s IPD experience
16 1.2.2.4 Insurance for IPD

72

1.32
1.29
1.28
1.27
1.25
1.23
1.21
1.21
1.19
1.18
1.17
1.17
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.13
1.12
1.11
1.10
1.09
1.08
1.08
1.07
1.07
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.02
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
0.96
0.92
0.92
0.83
0.75

Table 7 (cont’d)
Performance Constructs
No.

Metrics
Score
53 5.2.2 Actual cost growth
1.21
46 4.2 Problem addressed
1.20
55 5.3.2 Actual schedule growth
1.13
56 5.4 Change order
1.13
58 5.6 Participants' satisfaction
1.10
45 4.1 Commitment to IPD process
1.08
54 5.3.1 Perceived schedule performance
1.06
47 4.3 Adequate progress
1.04
52 5.2.1 Perceived cost performance
1.04
59 5.7 Sustainability
1.04
48 5.1.1 Turnover quality
1.00
49 5.1.2 System quality
1.00
50 5.1.3 Overall quality
1.00
51 5.1.4 Owner's satisfaction with cost
1.00
57 5.5 Safety
1.00
*Score: Scores represent project performance on each metric. Score ranges from 0.5 to 1.5. 0.5,
1.0 ,and 1.5 represent worst, neutral ,and best performance, respectively.

5.1.3 Top Five Metrics with Highest Scores Based on Content Analysis
Information sharing mechanisms refer to tools that inform participants of project task checklist
completion and quality, and routine information sharing behavior (Klein & Sorra, 1996). BIM as
a significant approach to information sharing is listed as a separate metric, which focuses on
other tools or approaches used by a project team to improve information exchange. Except for
one project missing related information, all other 11 projects have positive quotations. The most
commonly used approaches to information sharing are routine meetings and a web-based
information sharing system. Some teams also use SMART board (an interactive whiteboard
enabling live information sharing with off-site teams) or establish an advisory team for effective
information sharing. High performance on information sharing mechanisms indicates an efficient
information flow and can accelerate document submission and approval speed to enhance project
73

productivity. Meanwhile, a good information sharing system cannot be powerful without team
collaboration.

The decision making system in IPD projects is a distributed process involving all related team
members, who make major decisions collectively. Collaborative decision making is well
implemented in almost all projects (although information is missing for one project). The
collaboration enables informed and efficient decision making by considering the input from
different team members and creates a sense of ownership throughout the entire project team.
Based on the 12 content analysis projects, routine meetings and early involvement of contractors
provide a good climate for collaborative decision making. Some project teams use tools such as
A3 and Choosing by Advantages to help with decision making.

Effective management, as a significant approach to establish and maintain an integrated team, is
often seen among the 12 projects. Multi-level management teams and routine meetings are
widely employed in those projects. Different level teams have different meeting frequencies,
varying from daily to monthly meetings, to resolve issues and make decisions as a team. In
addition, some project teams assign team coordinators, hire an external facilitator, or hold
informal events to enhance team interaction and build a strong relationship among the whole
project team. BIM execution is more organized, with integrated team management strategies.

The early involvement of contractors and subcontractors in the design phase, along with owners’
active participation, is an innovative feature of IPD and most projects perform well on it.
Compared to the “phase of involvement” metric, this metric emphasizes what the project teams

74

do when they are involved early and how that later benefits IPD implementation. The general
contractors are involved in the beginning stages to perform ongoing estimations to keep the
design under budget and identify constructability issues in design to avoid the time consuming
constructability check and redesign process. The early involvement of major subcontractors
brings the design to a higher level of detail. Detailers from subcontractors work closely with
architects and engineers to make the design more accurate, which allows the project to achieve
more benefits from advanced BIM implementation.

In most projects, either part of or the whole project team has worked together before. This
earlier collaboration allows the project team members to have a better understanding and fit with
each other in terms of such things as company culture, approaches to project management, or
team interaction. This situation in turn creates a solid foundation on which the team can join IPD,
share both risks and profit, and step up to a higher level of collaboration. In IPD implementation
as an innovation, the previous cooperation experience of project parties makes the shift to team
integration easier, especially for project teams without IPD experience.

5.1.4 Metrics with Lowest Scores Based on Content Analysis
Although the projects in content analysis succeed in IPD implementation, the scores of some
metrics are below the neutral performance score (one point), as shown in Table 7. The score on
“Technical complexity” (motivator) is slightly lower than one, indicating that it is not the main
motivator of the project team implementing IPD. The low score on “confidence in project
management” reflects the concern of some project participants about whether they will benefit
from this innovative method. However, there are only three quotations for all projects under this
75

metric, which weakens this finding. Among all projects, only three fully waives liabilities among
project parties, which decreases their scores on the “Liability waiver” metric. This situation is
caused by either the owner or the government’s requirement, or else the uncomfortable result of
totally giving up on the traditional method and pursuing IPD. The “Lean construction related
tools” metric focuses on quotations that give an overall description of the “Lean construction
tools” application. The negative performance is based on only three quotations, so this result is
not very convincing. The low score on architects’ IPD experience is reasonable, considering that
IPD is a new method. Similarly, the score for owner and general contractor’s experience is 1.00,
just neutral, which indicates there are slightly more owners and general contractors with IPD
experience. The score on the “Insurance for IPD” metric is the lowest among all metrics, because
of ten projects with given information, only one plans to use insurance developed specifically for
IPD. Although there is no negative example given on lack of insurance for IPD, an IPD specific
insurance will enhance the risk sharing feature of IPD and further promote team integration.

5.1.5 Performance Constructs
Regarding performance constructs, the quotation quantity is very limited. There are 50
quotations for 18 metrics. Among these metrics, “problem addressed” (16 quotations), “actual
cost growth” (8 quotations), and “perceived schedule growth” (6 quotations)—all of which have
relatively more quotations—are discussed here. The “Problems addressed” metric refers to
problems addressed by implementing IPD. The high score achieved on this metric indicates IPD
implementation in these projects is effective. The collaboration and flexibility of IPD enable the
project team to solve urgent issues efficiently and select optimal strategies with support from all
related project participants. Among the six projects having quotations on “actual cost growth,”
76

five reduce the cost significantly because of IPD implementation, which illustrates the advantage
of IPD in reducing project cost. The score on the “Perceived schedule growth” metric is 1.04,
which is not outstanding. In general, there is no score below neutral for all metrics under
performance constructs, which implies that IPD is implemented successfully and improves
project performances, although a larger number of supporting quotations is needed to make the
results more convincing. The scores on some metrics (e.g., project quality and safety) are one,
due to the lack of quotations.

5.2 Case Study Findings
5.2.1 Metric Scores for Case Study
The case study, Project B, fails to implement IPD. The researcher analyzes the scores it achieves
under the metrics and identifies the factors that hinder IPD implementation in this project. Table
8 lists the scores Project B achieved under each metric, which are listed by descending order of
the scores.

Table 8 Score for Project B per Metric
Influencing Constructs
No.
1
18
21
2
35
44
20
3
6

Metrics
1.1.1.1 Owner’s IPD experience
1.3.2 Remove obstacles
1.4.1.1 Aligned project goals
1.1.1.2 Architect’s IPD experience
1.4.4.1.1 Phase of involvement
3.4 Negotiate
1.4.1 Decision making system
1.1.1.3 General Contractor’s IPD experience
1.1.3 Previous cooperation experience

77

Scores*
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.78
0.83
0.83

Table 8 (cont’d)
34
1.4.3 Confidence in project management
42
3.2 Manage
39
2.1 Commitment
8
1.2.1.2 Cost predictability
9
1.2.1.3 Schedule predictability
10
1.2.1.4 Risk management
11
1.2.1.5 Technical complexity
12
1.2.1.6 Strong motivator
13
1.2.2.1 Incentives
14
1.2.2.2 Risk pool
15
1.2.2.3 Liability waiver
16
1.2.2.4 Insurance for IPD
17
1.3.1 Respond to complaints
19
1.3.3 Exhibits no obstacles
23
1.4.2.1 Financial transparency
24
1.4.2.2 Building Information Modeling (BIM)
25
1.4.2.3 Lean Construction Related Tools
26
1.4.2.3.1 Last Planner System
27
1.4.2.3.2 Target Value Design
28
1.4.2.3.3 A3
29
1.4.2.3.4 A4
30
1.4.2.3.5 Choosing by Advantage
31
1.4.2.3.6 Visual management
32
1.4.2.3.7 Daily huddle
33
1.4.2.3.8 Other tools
37
1.4.4.2 Colocation
41
3.1 Monitor
43
3.3 Challenge
22
1.4.2 Information sharing mechanisms
40
2.2 Culture fit
38
1.5 Trust
7
1.2.1.1 Market advantage
5
1.1.2 Training
36
1.4.4.1.2 Early involvement effectiveness
4
1.1.1.4 Other Major Organizations’ IPD experience
Performance Constructs
No.
Metrics
59
5.7 Sustainability
47
4.3 Adequate progress
48
5.1.1 Turnover quality

78

0.83
0.91
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.06
1.08
1.19
1.20
1.25
1.33
1.50
Score
0.50
1.00
1.00

Table 8 (cont’d)
49
5.1.2 System quality
1.00
50
5.1.3 Overall quality
1.00
51
5.1.4 Owner's satisfaction with cost
1.00
52
5.2.1 Perceived cost performance
1.00
53
5.2.2 Actual cost growth
1.00
54
5.3.1 Perceived schedule performance
1.00
55
5.3.2 Actual schedule growth
1.00
56
5.4 Change order
1.00
57
5.5 Safety
1.00
58
5.6 Participants' satisfaction
1.00
46
4.2 Problem addressed
1.33
45
4.1 Commitment to IPD process
1.40
*Scores: Scores represent project performance on each metric. The score ranges from 0.5 to 1.5.
0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 represent worst, neutral, and best performance, respectively.

5.2.2 Special Considerations in Case Study
As can be seen in Table 8, 12 metrics have scores lower than 1.00, while for the content analysis,
there are only six metrics. Project B has low scores on “Owner’s IPD experience,” “Architect’s
IPD experience,” and “General contractor’s IPD experience,” indicating that these three parties
lack IPD experience. In contrast, the design supplier is more experienced in the IPD project,
which explains why the score on “other major organizations’ IPD experience” is high. Based on
the structured interview and email communication, the researcher identifies the following issues
that might make the team give up IPD: different location of general contractor, small project
scale, project budget problem, searching for corporation contributor, and unclear role of design
supplier in project team tiers. These issues are also reflected in the scores of related metrics.

5.2.2.1 General Contractor’s Distance to Project Location

79

General contractor’s distance to project location leads to a higher estimated cost and brings in
different operation approaches that impede team collaboration. The project team fails to realize
that the different location of a general contractor will increase the cost for a small scale project.
The architect comments:

“I think the GC could have been a great asset to the team. I just think distance was a huge
factor.”

In the preconstruction phase, in addition to providing an ongoing estimation, the owner needs the
contractor to reduce project cost. But that is difficult because they don’t have a strong network
with the local subcontractor of State A, where the project is located. As the architect said:

“Even though we gave them at least two to three names of each different category for bidding,
with his unfamiliarity, connections, and experiences with these people, I don’t feel that it was
easy for them to dial down the numbers to where they could have been.”

Estimations for overhead construction cost are also higher because the contractor has to consider
the travel cost and assign full time employees on site for a small scale project that could be done
by part time employees of a local contractor. The project manager of the general contractor
mentions:

80

“For a project of that size, we are probably not a good fit from the beginning to travel. The way
we approached it is a little bit more expensive. It does not translate to a project of that size. It
becomes a noticeable premium rather than just a minor premium when it’s a bigger job.”

“On a small project like this, a general contractor that can do that project in the neighborhood
doesn’t have to put a full time field superintendent on site because he has a superintendent doing
other projects in the area.”

In addition, as a middle size contractor from a large city in another state, the contractor has a
different way to deliver a project from State A, where the project is located. As the architect
stated:

“The GC is from the Midwest, but I think a larger firm out of City B would have done a fabulous
job building the building and the quality would have been there. But I think the distance of trying
to be comfortable with the climate of construction in State A [is] difficult.”

“The GC is kind of…different…. City B has a different culture—the building culture. I think that
was a part of the breakdown. They had a different set of standards, a different set of norms.. It
just made it difficult. I think they were a very good choice, but not for this project, not this
location.”

This culture difference due to different location might mean the team members take a longer
time to get used to each other and collaborate closely on the project, especially when they did not

81

work together before. Although the location issue does not specifically occur in IPD projects, it
does become an obstacle for IPD implementation in Project B as it increases the cost and makes
project meetings inconvenient.

5.2.2.2 Project scale

The small project scale is another issue claimed by all major project participants.
When asked about satisfaction with the skill levels of the project team, the owner responds:

“I think the team was overqualified in the project. Yes I was satisfied, but that level of
sophistication gets in the way of the actual delivery of a fairly simple building. It is completely
dependent on the complexity of the project. If this were a complex project, it would have a
different answer.”

The conversation between the researcher (UR1) and the architects (AR1 and AR2) also reflects
this problem:

UR1- “Any obstacles in the IPD process and the project itself?”
AR2- “The biggest obstacle was the size of the project.”
UR1- “The size was not a good fit for IPD?”
AR1- “It’s small.”

82

The contractor’s quotations about location issues indicate the problem of small project scale.
Additionally, he also suggests:

“With a fairly simple building like this, you can cut to the chase a little bit faster with a
traditional negotiation approach. Everybody is still on board early, at the table early and
transparent, but you are not necessarily following every step of the IPD process.”

The design supplier comments:

“I haven’t worked on the scale of the project, as some of my colleagues have. They are telling me
that the larger projects are easier than the smaller projects.”

It is true that IPD implementation in smaller and simpler projects might not be as cost efficient as
that in larger and more complex projects when considering the higher upfront investment
requirement of IPD. But there is no size limitation for IPD projects. There are small scale
projects that successfully implement IPD based on both the design supplier’s experience and the
projects in content analysis. As mentioned in the quotations, small project scale is an obstacle for
IPD implementation in Project B. However, overconcern about size issue influences project
participants’ commitment to IPD.

5.2.2.3 Project budget

83

The issue of project budget is also exposed in the interview. The general contractor’s efforts on
reducing estimated cost are not very effective, which make it more difficult to achieve the
owner’s budget goal. The owner says:

“We did everything to reduce the cost. But those were the only cost reductions we had. We
reduced the scope of the buildings, we changed the materials. Nothing came from the GC.”

The architect comments:

“I think the other problem with the GC [was that he] maybe knew sort of the budget but was
never driving the design, the cost or the materials to that budget. I think in a true IPD, you might
probably know budget more up…front and all the parties are working toward that same goal of a
nice building and a budget.”

The architect’s comment also indicates that the budget goal is not commonly agreed upon. The
owner’s target budget is very low and thought to be unrealistic by the architect and the design
supplier. The unaligned budget goal reduces team coherence in working toward the same
objective. The general contractor is involved in criteria design. Although it’s not late, they miss
the chance to have more influence on the project cost in the programming phase. Together, the
issues of the general contractor’s location, project scale, and budget impact the team’s
confidence in IPD project management and the participants’ commitment to the implementation
process.

84

5.2.2.4 Searching for donors

Seeking corporate contribution to this project through donations is another factor that makes IPD
implementation more complicated. The architect says:

“I am trying to get something out that I think has made this more difficult for the IPD. That has
been the donation factor. It’s complicated the whole effort, because it’s a moving target and a
moving target for a contractor is not comfortable. I don’t think there is anybody that had a
problem. It is more the moving target... all those factors have caused this project to be still kind
of a roller coaster.”

This extra process stretches the project schedule and challenges the architect’s design and the
general contractor’s ongoing estimating, which hinder IPD implementation. Another tricky
aspect is that IPD implementation is a condition of the design supplier to donate a large amount
of material to the project. When asked the reason for pursuing IPD, the owner answers:

“The reason is because it was the condition of the design supplier’s contribution to the project.
They said ‘We will do all this for Project B, provided you implement and allow us to document
the study in IPD process.’ So that was [an] absolute condition.”

Although this is the original motivation for the owner to pursue IPD, the project team does
realize the value of IPD and commits to the process. However, the score for the “commitment”
metric is still below neutral, due to issues of cost and identifying the role of the design supplier,

85

which will be discussed in the next paragraph. In general, seeking a corporate contributor not
only triggers IPD implementation but also becomes a big obstacle for it.

5.2.2.5 Design Supplier’s ambiguous role in team

As mentioned in the last paragraph, the role of the design supplier in this project is not clearly
identified, which causes management conflict between the owner and the design supplier. The
design supplier’s project manager would like to play a management role in Tier 1 of the project
team to guide IPD implementation, yet the owner treats both of them as a Tier 3 supplier who
sponsors the project and assists IPD implementation. The conflict limits access of the design
supplier to project meetings. Consequently the design supplier does not actively participate in the
negotiation and decision making processes, which causes Project B to have a low score on the
metrics of “manage,” “negotiation,” and “decision-making system.” This factor, along with other
barriers, reduces the design supplier’s level of commitment. As the project manager mentions:

“I think what happened, at least with myself and some of my colleagues internally, is when we
started seeing some of the little cracks we started having…questions in terms of feasibility and
we backed off a little bit, because we saw some of the red flags, and we started thinking, ‘OK,
how much do we invest in it? How much do we allocate time to a project where we think [it] is
highly likely not to proceed?’ I have no question that the other partners were committed. I think
the design supplier at some point was committed but we started backing up, thinking that this
might not go ahead.”

86

Although, Project B does not implement IPD to the end, the project still achieves scores above
neutral on the following metrics under “Influencing constructs”: “Information sharing
mechanisms,” “Culture fit,” “Trust,” “Market advantage,” “Training,” “Early involvement
effectiveness,” and “Other Major Organizations’ IPD experience.” This finding indicates the
project team has some good performance in those related aspects. The general contractor and the
architect have frequent information exchanges, with involvement of the owner. The interviewees
think their companies have good fits with many innovative IPD features. The project team
members trust each other in general. “Marketing advantage” motivates the project team to pursue
IPD. Orientation for IPD is provided by an external consultant. The involvement of a design
supplier who has more IPD experience also becomes a good source from which the project team
can learn IPD. Early involvement of the general contractor enables team members to work
closely with the architect in ongoing estimates.

As to performance constructs, the quotation quantity is limited. The low score on the
“sustainability” metric is based on only one quotation, which is not very strong. With relatively
more quotation support, Project B achieved high scores on “problem addressed” and
“commitment to IPD process,” which means that they acknowledge the benefits of implementing
IPD and are willing to use IPD in the future with a project having a better fit.

5.3 Influencing Factors—Pattern Matching Findings
The researcher uses a pattern matching approach to identify two tiers of factors that influence
IPD implementation.

87

Based on the scores calculated in Chapter 4, if a project’s score for a certain metric ranges from
1.0–1.5, the project performs well on that metric. Furthermore, if projects implementing IPD
successfully have a good performance (score > 1.0) on certain metrics, those metrics have a
potential positive influence on IPD implementation. Then a pattern-matching strategy is used to
identify the influencing factors further by comparing the project performance on those potential
metrics between projects that implement IPD successfully and projects that don’t. The extent of
difference will indicate the importance of the influencing factors. In this study, the researcher
defines the metrics that have a positive performance (score > 1.0) on successful IPD projects but
a negative performance (score < 1.0) on the failed IPD project, with a score difference larger
than 0.4 as the principal influencing factors.

IPD Case Studies (AIA et al., 2012), the report used for content analysis, indicates that generally
all 12 projects, either completed or already under construction, implements IPD successfully,
while Project B for the case study fails to implement IPD. So for this study, the researcher uses
the average score of content analysis projects and the score of Project B to identify the
influencing factors. Table 9 lists all 35 metrics (potential influencing factors) for which the
content analysis average score is higher than 1.0. Among those metrics, there are eight for which
the case study project score is lower than 1.0. However, on “commitment”, which is one of the
eight metrics, the score difference between content analysis and the case study is only 0.03. This
difference is too small compared to the other seven metrics, so this metric is not counted as a
principal influencing factor. Consequently, seven factors influencing IPD implementation are
identified: (1) previous working experience, (2) remove obstacles, (3) decision making system,
(4) aligned project goals, (5) phase of involvement, (6) manage, and (7) negotiate.

88

Table 9 Potential Factors that Influencing IPD Implementation
Content
Case Study
Analysis (CA)
(CS)
1.1.2 Training
1.18
1.25
1.1.3 Previous cooperation experience*
1.32
0.83
1.2.1.1 Market advantage
1.25
1.20
1.2.1.2 Cost predictability
1.13
1.00
1.2.1.3 Schedule predictability
1.13
1.00
1.2.1.4 Risk management**
1.27
1.00
1.2.1.6 Strong motivator**
1.21
1.00
1.2.2.1 Incentives
1.12
1.00
1.2.2.2 Risk pool
1.07
1.00
1.3.1 Respond to complaints
1.04
1.00
1.3.2 Remove obstacles*
1.19
0.50
1.3.3 Exhibits no obstacles
1.04
1.00
1.4.1 Decision making system*
1.42
0.78
1.4.1.1 Aligned project goals*
1.23
0.50
1.4.2 Information sharing mechanisms**
1.43
1.06
1.4.2.1 Financial transparency**
1.28
1.00
1.4.2.2 Building Information Modeling (BIM)**
1.21
1.00
1.4.2.3.1 Last Planner System
1.09
1.00
1.4.2.3.2 Target Value Design
1.07
1.00
1.4.2.3.3 A3
1.04
1.00
1.4.2.3.4 A4
1.02
1.00
1.4.2.3.5 Choosing by advantage
1.04
1.00
1.4.2.3.6 Visual management
1.08
1.00
1.4.2.3.7 Daily huddle
1.08
1.00
1.4.2.3.8 Other tools
1.10
1.00
1.4.4.1.1 Phase of involvement*
1.29
0.75
1.4.4.1.2 Early involvement effectiveness
1.34
1.33
1.4.4.2 Collocation
1.04
1.00
1.5 Trust
1.17
1.19
2.1 Commitment
1.01
0.97
2.2 Culture fit
1.14
1.08
3.1 Monitor
1.14
1.00
3.2 Manage*
1.34
0.91
3.3 Challenge
1.11
1.00
3.4 Negotiate*
1.17
0.75
*Principal Factors (Shaded in light grey): SCA>1.0, SCA<1.0, ∆>0.4
**Secondary Factors (Shaded in dark grey): SCA>1.0, SCA>1.0, ∆>0.2
Metrics

89

∆
(CA-CS)
-0.07
0.48
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.27
0.21
0.12
0.07
0.04
0.69
0.04
0.64
0.73
0.37
0.28
0.21
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.54
0.00
0.04
-0.01
0.03
0.07
0.14
0.43
0.11
0.42

As shown in Table 9, except for the seven factors, there are still some metrics on which the
differences between the average performance of content analysis projects and the performance of
the case study project are large. There are five metrics belonging to this situation where the score
difference is larger than 0.2: (A) Risk management motivator, (B) Strong motivator, (C)
Information sharing mechanisms, (D) Financial transparency, and (E) Building information
modeling (BIM). On the positive side, projects that implement IPD successfully have a higher
score on these metrics, which makes the metrics critical. On the negative side, Project B, which
fails in IPD implementation, achieves a neutral score on these metrics—caused either by neutral
performance or lack of quotation—meaning these metrics might not have caused the failure.
Therefore, these five factors are not as critical as the principal factors, based on the data of this
study. So they are proposed as secondary factors that influence IPD implementation.

Figure 13 illustrates the seven principal factors and five secondary factors in the score diagram
(metric names for the horizontal axis are listed in Table 4). For the principal factors, average
scores of successful IPD projects are at the tops of the peak points, and scores for projects failing
IPD implementation are at the bottoms of the valleys. For the secondary factors, compared to the
principal factors, the difference is that the score for the project failing IPD implementation
moves to the neutral line close to one.

90

Figure 13 Score Comparison between Content Analysis and Case Study
91

Table 10 lists the principal factors and secondary factors shown in Figure 13.

Table 10 Principal Factors and Secondary Factors Influencing IPD Implementation
Principal Factors
Secondary Factors
1. Previous working experience
A. Risk management motivator
2. Remove obstacles
B. Strong motivator
3. Decision making system
C. Information sharing mechanisms
4. Aligned project goals
D. Financial transparency
5. Phase of involvement
E. Building Information Modeling (BIM)
6. Manage
7. Negotiate
The seven principal influencing factors identified from the score are also proved to be important,
based on the quotations.

1. Previous Working Experience
IPD project participants with strong previous working experience have a good match on
organization culture and are familiar with each other’s working styles. This cohesion increases
the trust among project team members, reduces or eliminates the time for getting used to each
other, and encourages willingness to share risk and act in the best interests of the project.

In the content analysis, except for two projects that do not give relevant information, all other
projects include major organizations that have worked together before, among which at least
seven project teams have three or more organizations with previous cooperation experience. On
some projects, almost all the major organizations had done so. In Project 5, for example,

“participants overwhelmingly indicated [100%] that their organization had previous working
experience together. This also carried over to individuals, with 63.9% that had previously
worked with other team members.” (AIA et al., 2012; p. 53)

92

In Project B, owner and architect have long term cooperation experience, but general contractor
and design supplier have never worked with each other or with owner and architect. This
situation creates certain issues in team collaboration. For example, the architect points out that
general contractor’s team has “a different set of standards, a different set of norms” and she
thinks

“It [the difference] just made it [cooperation] difficult. They were a very good choice, but not for
this project, not this location.”

Project manager 1 (SPM1) of the design supplier personally experiences a culture difference in
the Midwest, in terms of ways of communication. In addition, owner does not feel comfortable
working with SPM1. Although such small issues cannot cause the failure of IPD implementation,
they can make team members to consume extra energy getting used to each other and working
together, especially under the context of IPD. This state of affairs weakens the innovation
climate of the project team. If they had worked together before, they might have already
overcome these issues or they might have chosen to avoid them by building a team in which the
organizations felt more comfortable working with each other.

2. Remove Obstacles
Remove obstacles refers to a project team taking actions to change the existing mechanisms or
resolve problems that might hinder IPD implementation in order to make team members
participate easily in the implementation process.

93

The content analysis projects employ a series of strategies to ensure that IPD is implemented
smoothly. Project 1’s team intentionally slows down the initial pace to allow more time for team
members to learn the new process. Following is another example of removing obstacles in
Project 1:

“The team discovered a deficiency in owner involvement as they worked through the value added
list (a list of items identified as desirable by the owner but not previously budgeted). The team
realized they needed more input at the user group level, specifically clinical operations, to better
prioritize those items. The owner addressed this by bringing a representative from hospital
operations onto the project team.” (AIA et al., 2012; p. 17)

In Project B, the team do not have effective strategies in place to resolve impediments that hinder
IPD implementation. One big obstacle is the corporation sponsor issue. The owner looks for
corporation contributions to reduce the project cost and build long term relationships with larger
companies in the AEC industry. Although a deadline is set for locating sponsors, the whole
process makes the construction material and related systems continue to change. Such an effect
increases the design complexity and lengthens the ongoing estimation. As the architect notes: “It
complicated the whole effort.” In addition, this time consuming process also deflates the team’s
passion for IPD, which in turn negatively impacts the climate for IPD implementation.

3. Decision Making
Collaborative decision making is a critical factor for successful IPD implementation. Compared
to centralized decision making, collaborative decision making involves everyone related to the

94

event, which not only gives the team members a sense of ownership but also improves the
efficiency of decision making and ensures the best decision is made for project success.

In content analysis, many projects have structured teams, routine meetings, and other
management strategies to provide a good environment for collaborative decision making. Certain
decision making tools are used to help higher level groups make efficient decisions. One such
instrument is A3 report, by which a document fits on a sheet in a fixed format to identify the
problems and provide possible solutions (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011). In Project 8,

“The team structure and decision making process was set up to be collaborative and transparent
between the primary project participants, which provided a great deal of flexibility while
working towards the best decisions for the project.” (AIA et al., 2012; p. 83)

In Project B, the general contractor is very satisfied with the collaborative decision making
process and offers an example about the decision of heating system close to a large picture
window. The SPM1 of the design supplier, however, gives opposite feedback because she is not
involved in making the decision to change the air distribution system from under the floor to
ceiling level, which is related to the raised floor system they promise to contribute. She says:

“All we knew is that the audit is being done, and the next thing we knew is that the decision was
made. If you are under IPD, you are part of that audit; you are part of making that
determination,”

95

So in general, collaborative decision making is not fully applied in Project B. Furthermore, the
researcher determines this situation might be related to management conflict between owner and
design supplier, which will be discussed in Section 5.5.

4. Aligned Project Goals
Aligned project goals refers to project goals mutually decided upon and agreed to by all project
participants (AIA et al., 2012). Goals developed by all team members collectively are optimized
in the best interests of the project, provide the team with a clear target on which to work, and
represent the first decision made by the team collaboratively.

In content analysis, most projects decide project goals jointly. In Project 2, for instance:

“Goals were established with collaborative input from the team. The owner’s IPD consultant
developed and led the process of defining goals. Special effort was dedicated to this process,
because lessons learned from other IPD teams warned that a lack of goal definition and
alignment at the beginning of a project caused serious problems later.” (AIA et al., 2012; p. 28 )

In one of the projects under study through content analysis, the initial budget goal is set by a
program manager rather than agreed upon by the project team. In that case, owner had to spend
extra money fix the issue.
It would be worse if the issue is not fixed and the project continues without aligned goals. For
instance, in Project B, architect, contractor, and design supplier all mention that the project
budget has not been agreed upon by the team. design supplier points out that

96

“His [the owner] understanding and expectation and our understanding to what is really going
on in the build world were very far apart.”

Similarly, architect also comments,

“I think we had too big of a gap of the cost of the building and the true budget.”

The project budget disagreement is one critical reason that causes IPD implementation to fail on
Project B.

5. Phase of Involvement
Phase of involvement is an indicator about when general contractor and major subcontractors are
involved in the project. In this study, involving at or before “criteria design phase” (schematic
design phase) is considered as early involvement. Early involvement of major project parties is
significant for IPD. It helps the team align project goals. general contractor and subcontractors
actively participate in the design phase to provide ongoing estimations to ensure the design is
under budget, help architect design the building within the target value the owner wants to
achieve, and resolve potential construction issues in advance—which eliminates time wasted on
checking constructability after the design is completed and then having to redesign. In addition,
the early and active involvement of owner adds great value to a high efficiency team’s decision
making.

97

In content analysis, all IPD projects involve major participants earlier than do the non IPD
projects. Six project teams clearly mention general contractor and major subcontractors join the
team from either the programming or the criteria design phase of the project. Most projects using
early involvement (on or before the criteria design phase) reflect effectiveness and values. For
example, in Project 3,

“At the time this study was conducted, the team attributed cost savings to the transparency
gained through early involvement of subcontractors, who were able to better understand the
project and influence design and product/system selection decisions. This allowed cost estimates
to be more accurate and product/system selection to be more thoroughly considered in terms of
design, installation, and operation.” (AIA et al., 2012; p. 39 )

In Project B, contractor gets involved when conceptual design is completed. No subcontractor is
involved by the end of IPD. Although general contractor is involved relatively early and works
closely with architect, when they find out the design is over budget, it is difficult for the team to
change the design. As contractor says:

“we were brought a little bit later than the design is already in motion conceptually fairly far
along.”
“We did our initial budget on it after the IPD process had begun. It makes it very difficult to
start to strip away some of the things that you really thought great in the project. Unfortunately
some of that had to happen to get the numbers down to where it will be acceptable to the owner.
Both the owner and the architect had to sacrifice some of the design to meet the budget.”

98

In this case, the value of early involvement is not fully realized in Project B.

6. Manage
In this study, manage refers to how project team members at management level act cooperatively
to resolve differences, communicate with other groups, and seek to buffer a project from external
forces (Korkmaz et al., 2012). Effective management strategies foster collaboration among
interorganizational teams, a key element for success of an IPD project.

In content analysis, as in the “decision making system” factor, many project teams have routine
meetings and structured teams to optimize team coordination and resolve problems efficiently. In
Project 7, the team has three leadership levels: (1) The “Integrate Project Team (IPT)” consisting
of project manager representatives of owner, architect, general contractor, and subcontractors
who work closely during the project delivery process, (2) a “higher level Core Team” composed
of the three major parties who meet monthly to “resolve issues passed up from IPT,” and (3) the
“Executive Level Committee” of the three partners responsible for decisions on which lower
level teams did not reach consensus. This management mechanism ensures problems are solved
collaboratively and effectively with input from all team members.

In Project B, as a small scale project, a three level management team might not be needed, but
routine meetings are still necessary. As the architect mentions,

99

“If the process was fully going to be an IPD we would have organized a timeline where we
would say every week we’ll have an hour conference call and all these parties need to be part of
that period, (but) it did not happened.”

According to the architect, one reason for that is the contributor search process stretching the
timeline of the IPD process. the architect has a good management process within the architecture
firm, in terms of interaction of designers, in-house consultant, and project manager. Yet Project
B, as an interorganizational team, does not have management strategies that greatly improve
team integration, a disadvantage in building a strong climate for IPD implementation.

7. Negotiate
In this study, negotiate refers to members spending time discussing issues and using tradeoffs or
making concessions to devise workable solutions. An effective negotiation process helps resolve
conflicts in the collective participation of team members and maintain a good innovation climate
through communication.

In content analysis, most projects have a disputation resolution condition written into the contract
to make sure serious conflicts can be solved appropriately without threatening the project’s
success. In addition, good management and decision making mechanisms are also valuable for
settling disagreements by creating opportunities for negotiation. Some strategies are adopted in
certain projects to help team members reach consensus through negotiation. For example, in
Project 12,

100

“During design, the primary decision makers were the Captains, representatives from every
major firm involved at the time. The Captains group was responsible for helping resolve issues
at many levels, from team structure and relationships to significant project decisions. Sometimes
the group would function as mediator if there were disagreements at the cluster level.” (AIA et
al., 2012; p. 110)

In Project B, the negotiation process is not followed consistently. Using the same examples of
decision making, the contractor mentions they provide different opinions on the heating system
design during team discussion, so no matter which system is used, the information enables the
owner to make an informed decision. design supplier again points out there is no negotiation
process to change the air distribution system.

“When the pre-construction quotes were being done, I got an email from OPM1 [owner’s name
is coded] saying that ‘to cut costs we were going with the HVAC units on the roof.’ And that is
totally contradictory to [what] our raised floors are intended to do. Our product is intended to
run the HVAC under the floor. That was something that I had to push back on and say ‘This is
not what the original agreement was.’”

Deficiency in negotiation here negatively impacts collaborative decision making on the
disagreement and shatters the climate for IPD implementation.

101

5.4 Cross Case Synthesis Findings
The purpose of using cross-case synthesis in this study is to identify common patterns of
successful IPD projects, in terms of the relationship among the 5 constructs by comparing the
performance of the 12 projects in content analysis. The researcher calculates the score of each
project under the 5 constructs and then sorts the projects by different constructs or general
information to identify the patterns.

Due to the small quotation quantity in implementation effectiveness and innovation
effectiveness, the researcher does not find any strong relationship between influencing factors
and implementation effectiveness or innovation effectiveness. The researcher does identify,
however, several findings among the three influencing factors.

Table 11 indicates that climate scores are generally higher as a project increases in size. A
possible reason is that large projects have longer duration and usually higher complexity than
small projects. In the larger projects, teams see the value of training employees, and establish
efficient coordination mechanisms to improve team collaboration. Although the learning curve
will be steep in the beginning, once the team gets used to the new system, it will benefit much
more during the long duration of the project than if it had invested at the start. Usually large
projects have a higher risk than small projects, which brings the team stronger motivation and
even has the more sophisticated team members completing the project successfully. Although
there is no size limitation for IPD implementation, some project participants think it is a better fit
for a larger project. For example, in Project 7:

102

“When asked if IPD was applicable to all projects, [we] felt that it is ideal for larger scaled,
complex projects and perhaps does not have [a] proportionate value in smaller, simpler
projects.” (AIA et al., 2012; p. 76)

Table 11 Influencing Factor Score Sorted by Project Size

Proj. #
Proj. 12
Proj. 1
Proj. 9
Proj. 5
Proj. 11
Proj. 10
Proj. 8
Proj. 2
Proj. 7
Proj. 6
Proj. 4
Proj. 3

Size(sf.)
878000
860000
590000
525000
223000
156000
138000
94000
70000
55000
15000
7000

Climate
1.24
1.26
1.14
1.15
1.11
1.15
0.95
1.10
1.05
1.10
1.03
1.05

InnovationValues Fit
Communication
1.25
1.33
1.27
1.27
0.83
1.19
1.10
1.22
0.85
1.04
1.13
1.35
0.75
1.21
1.27
1.23
0.88
1.00
1.08
1.08
1.19
1.25
1.28
1.13

Total
1.28
1.27
1.05
1.16
1.00
1.21
0.97
1.20
0.97
1.09
1.16
1.15

Table 11 also indicates the potential relationship between climate and communication
mechanisms. Projects with good performance (Projects 1, 5, 10, and 12) on innovation
implementation climate have a better performance on communication mechanisms.

Table 12 shows that project teams with a good innovation-values fit have good communication
on climate. However, this observation goes against the findings in the pattern-matching section.
Both the projects implementing IPD successfully and the project that fails to implement IPD

103

have a decent performance on the metrics for innovation-values fit. While the former perform
well on communication mechanisms, the latter does not.

Table 12 Influencing Factor Score Sorted by Innovation-Values Fit

Proj. #
Proj. 3

Size(sf.)
7000

Climate
1.05

InnovationValues Fit
1.28

Proj. 1
Proj. 2
Proj. 12
Proj. 4
Proj. 10
Proj. 5
Proj. 6
Proj. 7
Proj. 11
Proj. 9
Proj. 8

860000
94000
878000
15000
156000
525000
55000
70000
223000
590000
138000

1.26
1.10
1.24
1.03
1.15
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.11
1.14
0.95

1.27
1.27
1.25
1.19
1.13
1.10
1.08
0.88
0.85
0.83
0.75

Communication
1.13

Total
1.15

1.27
1.23
1.33
1.25
1.35
1.22
1.08
1.00
1.04
1.19
1.21

1.27
1.20
1.28
1.16
1.21
1.16
1.09
0.97
1.00
1.05
0.97

Table 13 shows that most projects with lower communications scores also have lower scores on
innovation-values fit. For IPD project teams, especially those without IPD experience, there are
consequences if communication mechanisms are not very effective. For example, if there is
neither an appropriate strategy for managing the project team to improve team collaboration nor
an approach to promote negotiation to resolve conflict, it will be difficult to earn commitment
from project participants and create or keep a collaborative culture in the project.

104

Table 13 Influencing Factor Score Sorted by Communication

Proj. #
Proj. 10
Proj. 12

Size(sf.)
156000
878000

Climate
1.15
1.24

InnovationValues Fit
1.13
1.25

Proj. 1
Proj. 4
Proj. 2
Proj. 5
Proj. 8
Proj. 9
Proj. 3
Proj. 6
Proj. 11
Proj. 7

860000
15000
94000
525000
138000
590000
7000
55000
223000
70000

1.26
1.03
1.10
1.15
0.95
1.14
1.05
1.10
1.11
1.05

1.27
1.19
1.27
1.10
0.75
0.83
1.28
1.08
0.85
0.88

Communication
1.35
1.33

Total
1.21
1.28

1.27
1.25
1.23
1.22
1.21
1.19
1.13
1.08
1.04
1.00

1.27
1.16
1.20
1.16
0.97
1.05
1.15
1.09
1.00
0.97

5.5 Insights from the Longitudinally Collected Case Study Data
As mentioned before, the researcher also collects longitudinal data from Project B, including
email communication, audio records and minutes of face-to-face meetings, and conference calls.
Because these data cannot evenly reflect project performance on all metrics, the researcher
doesn’t include them in the data analysis score calculation. However, these materials help to
understand why Project B does not succeed for IPD. Among the seven factors influencing IPD
implementation, the researcher sees problems with decision making systems, aligned project
goals, manage, and negotiate from email records and meeting minutes.

First, the project team is not managed well enough to support the effective implementation of
IPD. Since the kickoff meeting, during the three-month IPD implementation period, the project
teams have only four meetings with three or more major participants involved, which include the
105

face-to-face kickoff meeting and three conference calls. One of the reasons is the slow workflow
caused by seeking corporate contributions. Although the project is small scale and the team
might not need to meet as frequently as it would on a large scale project, the lack of routine
meetings hinders the communication effectiveness and reduces the chance for efficient and
collaborative information sharing, which further impedes IPD implementation. The architect also
highlights this situation in the interview. In addition to the meeting frequency issue, the
researcher finds a conflict management problem between the owner and the design supplier. As
the IPD initiation party, the design supplier has more experience on IPD projects, and the project
manager of the design supplier (SPM 1) acts in a Tier 1 role on the project team to manage the
IPD process. For example, in the email communication, SPM1 wrote to the owner:

“Is there a time line in place to determine how long the seeking of building contributions will
continue? Has an amount/contributions been identified as to what you deem necessary to break
ground? These factors will determine the project timeline and building opening, and could also
impact the partner relations without clearly defined goals.”
“Has or will the phone conference planned with the architecture and the GC take place today? If
so, please forward the minutes or summary of that conference call onto the team as a whole.
With the fast pace that all these good things are happening, it’s critical that communication with
the team as a whole remains intact.”

The owner still treats SPM 1 as a Tier 3 supplier (and also a corporate sponsor) who can provide
more advice on IPD implementation. Of the four meetings mentioned above, the design supplier
is involved only in the kickoff meeting. The owner’s project manager (OPM 1) feels that SPM 1

106

is involved too much in project management, which makes the situation complicated. For
example, OPM 1 replies to the design supplier (not responding to SPM 1’s quoted email):

“Per our discussion I am not promoting design supplier (company name is coded) as a
‘Partner’, but your status as a contributing supplier has given us credibility for which we are
grateful.”

“Clearly SPM1 and SPM2 (another member of the design supplier) have valuable input on the
nuts and bolts discussions we're having with the architect and the GC. What is the appropriate
level to engage you design supplier (company name is code)] now?”

In the IPD process, every organization in the project team should define its roles appropriately
and reach consensus on that among the team. There is no right or wrong about the level of
involvement of the design supplier, however; only when all the participants agree on that can the
IPD management process be more efficient. This is also an important part of team collaboration.

Second, the decision making and negotiation process is not collaborative enough. The lack of
routine team meetings reduces the chance for the team member to negotiate and make decisions
collaboratively and efficiently. Although some decisions (e.g., general contractor selection,
choosing a heating system for large picture windows) are made together with negotiation, they
are not consistently implemented. For example, the owner changes the underfloor air distribution
system to a ceiling level air distribution system for budget’s sake without input from the design

107

supplier who contributes the raised floor system to Project B. The following email from the
design supplier reflects the issue:

“Appreciate the update, OPS1. Quick question: with the design supplier’s contribution of
access floor listed, does that mean both the HVAC and data will now be run through the floor? I
recall from the last minutes something about HVAC units on the roof? Please clarify. The
sustainability story becomes stronger and more credible through the full utilization of the access
flooring.”
“A small footprint is a challenge however I do not recall us being involved in this exercise. [I]
would like [to] see the material.”

Lack of collaboration in decision making and negotiation fade in the climate for IPD
implementation.

Third, the project budget goal is not well aligned among organizations, even though the aligned
project goals are emphasized in the kickoff meeting by the external IPD consultant. The owner
keeps trying to reduce the budget to a target that is thought to be unrealistic for a high
performance green building by architect, general contractor and design supplier. Even two
months after the kickoff meeting, the design supplier still tries via email to convenience the
owner to have a feasible budget. The disagreement on budget becomes the break point that the
team (proposed by the design supplier) gives up IPD and the owner changes the contractor.
Therefore, aligned project goals are very critical for IPD’s implementation as an innovation.

108

5.6 Summary
In summary, this chapter introduces two of the three deliverables in this study, and presents the
findings of the content analysis and case study based on scores and quotations from the data
documents. Then the researcher uses a pattern-matching strategy to identify two tiers of factors
that influence IPD implementation. The 7 principal factors are (1) previous work experience, (2)
remove obstacles, (3) decision making system, (4) aligned project goals, (5) phase of
involvement, (6) manage, and (7) negotiate. Five secondary factors are (1) risk management
motivator, (2) strong motivator, (3) information sharing mechanisms, (4) financial transparency,
and (5) BIM. Finally, the researcher uses the longitudinal data to strengthen the findings.

109

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Introduction
As descripted in Chapter 1, the goals of this study are: 1) Test the revised Klein and Sorra (1996)
innovation implementation model (as shown in Figure 1) via content analysis and describe
metrics for its constructs in the context of IPD implementation on AEC teams, 2) explore
communication mechanisms in IPD teams and their links to the Klein and Sorra (1996) model,
and 3) develop propositions to define links among innovation implementation model constructs
and communication mechanisms. The four deliverables of this study are an IPD implementation
evaluation system, survey questions, IPD implementation quotations, and propositions. This
chapter introduces deliverables and conclusions achieved by applying pattern-matching and
cross-case synthesis approaches and explains how they met the goals of this study.

6.2 Deliverables
To investigate the factors that influence IPD implementation, as well as the role played by
communication mechanisms in IPD implementation and its relationship with innovation climate
and values fit, the researcher develops an evaluation system named IPD Implementation
Evaluation System. The system consists of 59 metrics, creates the measurements, defines the 3
standard levels, and provides a scoring system to assess the IPD implementation process. Future
studies can use this system to evaluate the implementation process of other IPD projects or
modify it for use in assessing other innovation implementation processes. A table listing the

110

metrics, measurements, and level standards is attached in Appendix A. Table 14 offers a sample
of the contents.

Table 14 Sample of Metrics, Measurements, and Standards for Evaluation
Constructs

Metrics

Measure
Description

Good

Standards
Neutral

Poor

1.1 Team member
skill levels
Number of IPD projects
1.1.1 Major project
delivered, or has
participants' IPD
adequate experience on
experience
1. Climate
design-build method
1
Number of IPD projects
an owner experienced,
1.1.1.1 Owner
or has adequate
experience on designbuild method
1

0, but has abundant
design-build
experience
0

0, but has abundant
design-build
experience
0

To collect IPD related data in the case study, a series of survey questions is developed based on
the IPD implementation evaluation system. The survey questions cover five different aspects:
basic information, climate/structures, innovation-values fit, communication behaviors,

and

innovation effectiveness. The whole survey question list is attached in Appendix B.

As introduced in Chapter 4, all quotations obtained from the content analysis and case study data
are coded under each metric and categorized into different levels. These examples help readers to
understand how the evaluation process is executed in this study and assist other researchers to
follow and validate this research approach. The quotation coding results are attached in
Appendix H. A sample of the results is displayed in Figure 14. The third deliverable—
propositions—will be presented in Sections 6.2 and 6.3.

111

Positive

Project #

Neutral

Not Given

Negative

Metric
Quotations

The contents of the table are for reference only and not meant to be read.
Figure 14 Sample of Quotation Coding Results

6.3 Propositions from Pattern Matching
This section proposes a series of propositions based on the seven principal factors identified and
other important patterns observed from the score diagram (Figure 13). In terms of the three
influencing constructs, 5 factors belong to climate and 2 factors belong to communication. There
is no factor belonging to innovation-values fit.

When linking the findings to Klein and Sorra’s model, the researcher finds that unless the IPD
implementation success is caused only by a good communication mechanism, a good climate
does play a critical role in IPD implementation. In addition, three out of the five influencing
factors from climate belong to coordination mechanisms proposed by Miller and Korkmaz
(2012). The findings do not, however, establish any impact of innovation-values fit on the IPD
implementation success. As shown in Figure 13, under the innovation-values fit construct,

112

there is no convincing opposite performance as seen in the seven influencing factors. In general,
the climate and communication mechanisms of the revised Klein and Sorra (1996) model are
strengthened in light of this study. Based on the findings above, the researcher concludes that
innovation climate and communication mechanisms foster successful IPD implementation.
Furthermore the researcher identifies three possible relationships among them, illustrated in
Figure 15, and proposes three propositions that represent those relationships.

Climate

PM-P2
PM-

PM-P3

Communication
Mechanisms

PM-P3

PM-P2

Successful IPD
implementation
PM-P#: Pattern Matching Position #
Figure 15 Constructs Relationship in Pattern-Matching Proposition

PM-Proposition 1. Good innovation climate and communication mechanisms in a project team
together facilitate IPD implementation as an innovation.
PM-Proposition 2. Good innovation climate improves the project team’s communication
mechanisms and further facilitates IPD implementation as an innovation.

113

PM-Proposition 3. Positive team communication mechanisms provide a good climate for
innovation and further facilitate IPD implementation as an innovation.

6.4 Propositions from Cross-Case Synthesis
In this section, the researcher introduces the conclusions achieved from cross-case synthesis
findings. These propositions reveal potential relationships among the three performance
constructs.
CCS-Proposition 1. Large scale projects have a better climate for innovation implementation
than do small scale projects.
CCS-Proposition 2. If the climate for innovation implementation is good, team communication
mechanisms are good.
This proposition is congruent with part of PM-Proposition 2a. Due to the overlap, Proposition 2
will not be listed as a separate proposition.
CCS-Proposition 3. If the project team does not have a good communication mechanism, it
would be difficult to form an effective innovation-values fit.

6.5 Summary
This chapter identifies the importance of climate and communication in the revised Klein and
Sorra (1996) model proposed in Chapter 2. Then, based on the results of pattern matching and
cross-case synthesis, the following propositions are developed:
Proposition 1. Good innovation climate and communication mechanisms in a project team
facilitate IPD implementation as an innovation.

114

Proposition 2. Good innovation climate improves the project team’s communication
mechanisms and further facilitates IPD implementation as an innovation.
Proposition 3. Positive team communication mechanisms provide a good climate for innovation
and further facilitate IPD implementation as an innovation.
Proposition 4. Large scale projects have a better climate for innovation implementation than do
small scale projects.
Proposition 5. If project team did not have good communication mechanisms, it would be
difficult to form an effective innovation-values fit.

115

CHAPTER 7

DISSCUSSION AND SUMMARY

The final chapter discusses the practical and theoretical application of this study’s findings in the
AEC industry and other project based industries. The author presents the limitations of this
investigation and offers suggestions for future exploration.

7.1 Practical and Theoretical Application
This section compares the findings of this study with those of previous research, generalizes the
findings of this study, and highlights the contributions of this study. In this investigation, the
researcher identifies seven principal factors and five secondary factors that influence IPD
implementation, points out the importance of climate and communication in successful IPD
implementation, and proposes the significance of communication to innovation-values fit.

7.1.1 Practical Applications
For IPD, this study validates the contributions to IPD implementation of communication and
team coordination, which are pointed out by Nofera, Korkmaz, & Miller (2011). Meanwhile this
study strengthens several factors that are valued by IPD Case Studies (AIA, 2012), such as
previous cooperation experience, aligned project goals, and early involvement. Besides these
factors, the researcher highlights the functions of removing obstacles and negotiation in IPD
implementation, which are new for IPD related studies.
From the failed IPD project analyzed in the case study, the researcher observes certain issues that
might hinder IPD implementation. The general contractor’s distance to the project location

116

makes team collaboration more difficult in the preconstruction phase. Small project scale and
low level of complexity make the project less cost efficient for IPD implementation. The
disagreement on project budget throughout the whole project delivery process breaks up the
climate for IPD implementation. Searching for corporate contributors stretches out the design
duration and makes design and estimating more difficult in the context of IPD. The role of a
team member is not identified, which hinders team communication and weakens the innovation
implementation climate. All these factors intertwine and lead to the failure of IPD
implementation.

As discussed in the literature review, IPD as an innovative delivery method optimizes the whole
project performance, which benefits all major team members: owner, architects and engineers,
general contractor, and major subcontractors (AIA California Council, 2007; Sive, 2009). In
general, this study highlights the importance of a positive innovation implementation climate and
effective communication mechanisms to successful IPD implementation, and identifies potential
relationships among the three performance constructs: climate, innovation-values fit, and
communication mechanisms. These conclusions offer guidance for project team members to
implement IPD more effectively. Furthermore, the identified Principal Factors and Secondary
Factors give more specific directions to project team members. The lessons learned from the
failed IPD project remind team members what to pay attention to during IPD implementation. So
in an IPD project, the owner should be actively involved in the design and construction process
to provide information that the architects, engineers, and contractors need. The owner should
also help with efficient and collaborative decision making. The architect should get used to the
collaborative design process, incorporating the input of other project participants. The

117

contractors should join the project earlier to help with identifying design issues from the
perspective of construction and to make sure the design meets the budget by providing ongoing
estimates. In general, all project participants should always behave as one integrated team
working toward the success of the project.

7.1.2 Theoretical Applications
Regarding innovation implementation in the AEC industry, most of the principal influencing
factors identified in this study require high level collaboration and communication among
different organizational teams, which is congruent with Pekericli, Akinci, & Karaesmen’s (2003)
theory that

emphasizes

the

importance

of

integration

and

communication

among

interorganizational teams. Because collaboration is highly promoted in the AEC industry, it is
not unusual that several innovative methods with integration requirements are implemented at
the same time to optimize project performance. In this case, the findings of the current study in
the context of IPD are very compatible with those innovative methods. BIM, as a technical tool
that promotes team integration, plays an important role in facilitating innovation implementation,
such as IPD (Dossic & Neff, 2011). In BIM implementation, even a factor such as “phase of
involvement” (which is unique to IPD) is also very valuable in BIM implementation, let alone
other factors that are relatively normal. This example is also a good one to highlight the idea that
effective collaboration is as important as technical strategies (Chinowsky et al., 2008). Therefore
this study’s findings on the relationship between communication and innovation implementation
generated under the background of IPD can be extended to other innovation implementation
processes in the AEC industry.

118

As for general innovation implementation, this study validates part of Klein and Sorra’s (1996)
model by pointing out the positive influence of climate on successful innovation implementation.
This research also emphasizes the significance of intensive coordination supported by effective
communication in dispute resolution and solving emergency issues (Adler, 1995), common in
innovation implementation. The relationship between climate and communication proposed in
this study is also implied in the literature. Lewis, Hamel, and Richardson (2011) point out
communication is critical in removing the concerns of participants for collaboration, and Higgs
and Rowland (2011) emphasize the importance of equal participation in reaching consensus on
disagreements. Also, this study proposes the importance of communication in improving the
innovation-values fit (team members’ “buy-in”), which is posited by Lewis (2007). But other
proposed propositions based on IPD implementation need further testing to verify whether they
are generic for general innovation implementation.

Table 15 lists studies from the literature discussed above that support findings about innovation
implementation on a different scale, from IPD to the AEC industry to general industry. The
studies with dash underlining are less strong than others. As can be seen, most findings are
supported on different scales. These studies also act as external validation to support the new
innovation implementation model proposed by Miller and Korkmaz (2012) in Chapter 2. Future
research can test the findings in those areas. Some suggestions are provided for prospective
researchers later.

To summarize, in addition to validating the findings of previous research, this study identifies
certain new factors (e.g., remove obstacles and negotiation) that influence IPD implementation.

119

The applicability of some innovation implementation findings—both to the AEC industry and
general industry— need to be tested further.

120

Table 15 Literature Supporting Findings for External Validation
Practical
Applications
Constructs

Findings and Propositions

Good climate facilitates
innovation implementation
Good climate facilitates
communication
Large scale projects have better
climate
Effective team communication
mechanisms facilitates innovation
implementation
Effective team communication
Communication mechanisms facilitate climate of
innovation implementation
Ineffective team communication
mechanisms may impede
innovation-values fit
Climate

IPD
Implementation
AIA et al. (2012);
Nofera et al.
(2011)
No related
reference
No related
reference
AIA et al. (2012);
Nofera et al.
(2011)
No related
reference
No related
reference

121

Theoretical Application
Innovation
Implementation in AEC
Industry
No related reference

Innovation
Implementation in
Organizations
Klein & Sorra (1996)

No related reference

Lewis et al. (2001)

No related reference

No related reference

Chinowski et al. (2008);
Dossic & Neff (2011);
Pekericli et al. (2003)
No related reference

Adler (1995); Klein &
Sorra (1996)

No related reference

Lewis (2007); Lewis et
al. (2001)

Higgs & Rowland
(2011)

7.2 Limitations
In this section, the researcher points out several limitations of the research.

1. By using content analysis and a case study, this study achieves its objectives of successfully
testing Klein and Sorra’s (1996) model and developing propositions about the relationships
between communication and other constructs. Due to the limited number of samples used in
this project, however, the researcher is not able to statistically validate the findings of this
study.

2. A unique feature of Project B used for the case study is that the owner looks for corporate
sponsors for building materials for economic and long term cooperation. This aspect makes
the situation more complicated in terms of motivation for pursuing IPD, team recruiting, and
cost and schedule control. This factor might make the IPD implementation process somewhat
different from a typical construction project. Because IPD is relatively new, however, there
are limited number of projects implementing it, not to mention the projects that tried but
failed. It is a rare opportunity for a researcher to have so much access on a project that does
not implement IPD successfully. So the case study used in this research is still quite valuable.

3. Considering the characteristic of content analysis, the researcher is only able to obtain data
from the written report rather than collect data directly from the project participants. This
limitation causs an uneven distribution of quotations among different metrics and variation in
quotation quantities among different projects. The variation could potentially influence
accuracy of the results. Meanwhile, the scores of metrics with fewer or even no quotations

122

are less convincing. All major findings of this study, however, are based on metrics
supported by a large number of quotations.

4. The study has limited data on the constructs of implementation effectiveness and innovation
effectiveness, due either to a project not being finished or to the related information not being
provided. Although there is no doubt that all projects in the content analysis implement IPD
successfully and the project in the case study does not, the researcher is unable to identify the
links between the influencing factors and the detailed metrics in both implementation
effectiveness and innovation effectiveness.

5. The interview questions used by the researcher for the case study project to collect data are
different from those used by other researchers to collect data in content analysis projects. The
differing emphasis in interview questions might lead to variation in quotation quantities
under certain metrics, which could influence accuracy of the results.

7.3 Suggestions for Future Research
Based on the insights achieved from this study, the researcher suggests employing social network
analysis and surveys in future research on the implementation of IPD and other innovations to
test, consolidate, or extend the findings of this research. Researchers ought to pay more attention
to the findings and propositions with limited literature as validation, as shown in Table 15.

123

7.3.1 Adopting Social Network Analysis
The email data collected is not heavily used in this study, but these longitudinal data are still
quite valuable for investigating team communication behavior and team integration. Chinowsky,
Diekmann, and Galotti (2008) highlight the importance of a project network in building a high
performance project team in the AEC industry. They conclude that social network analysis
(SNA) can be used to reflect and further improve AEC team performance. For example, SNA
can be applied to investigate email communication among AEC teams. Researchers can employ
certain metrics to assess social network performance by running UCINET software. Degree
centrality—number of connections one individual has to other individuals—reflects the influence
of one individual among the team members (Halgin, 2008). Specifically, in-degree centrality and
out-degree centrality can be used to measure the degree of information sent or received by
certain individuals (Hanneman & Mark, 2005). Closeness-Eigenvector Centrality can be used to
measure the influence of an individual to the whole interorganizational team by diminishing the
influence of a small region, such as the organization to which the individual belongs (Hanneman
& Mark, 2005). Betweenness centrality (Freeman’s approach) can be used to measure the
importance of an individual to linking other individuals for team performance (Halgin, 2008). In
addition, geodesic distance—referring to the quantity of links on the shortest pass between two
individuals—can be used to measure team cohesion (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002).
Meanwhile, researchers can generate NetDraw in UCINET to visualize a social network model
of the project team and clearly demonstrate the connections among team members, as well as the
influence each individual has on the others.

124

Future research can establish social network models for a project that implements IPD
successfully, and also for a project that fails to implement IPD, and compare the metrics and
visual NetDraws to investigate the influence of team communication, information sharing
mechanisms, and distributive decision making on IPD implementation. Furthermore, if the
quantitative SNA can be combined with the qualitative content analysis and case study of this
research, the findings will be even more solid.

7.3.2 Developing a Survey
The researcher conducts structured interviews to collect data for one case study here. In future
research, it is necessary to collect data on a larger number of IPD projects to test statistically the
propositions proposed by this study. To do so, a survey questionnaire is needed to collect
quantitative data. Compared to performing a structured interview, using the survey method to
collect data is less time consuming, and it is easier to obtain responses among a larger sample.

The survey might be developed based on the IPD implementation evaluation system originated
in this study. There could be six sections in the survey, including the project’s general
information section and five sections for each construct—climate, innovation-values fit,
communication mechanisms, implementation effectiveness, and innovation effectiveness. Under
each construct, the measuring standard for a metric can be turned into a survey question by using
a Likert scale (Likert, 1961). In addition, the quantity and standard of the survey metrics can be
adjusted based on the findings of this study and other literature to serve the survey purposes
better. If future researchers need more detailed information, they could use open-ended questions
in the survey, or conduct structured interviews at the same time based on demand.
125

7.4 Summary
By using content analysis and a case study approach, this research identifies two tiers of factors
that influence IPD implementation as an innovation, as listed below, among which principal
factors are stronger than secondary factors.
Principal influencing factors:
(1) Previous work experience: Positive previous cooperation experience enhances the level of
trust and makes team integration much easier.
(2) Remove obstacles: Strategies that remove the concerns of project team members about IPD
implementation and provide easier access to the understanding and execution of IPD create a
good climate for IPD implementation.
(3) Decision making system: A decision making system encouraging collaborative and
informative decision making helps the team efficiently identify optimal solutions to project
success.
(4) Aligned project goal: Common project goals decided in the early phases of projects reduce
potential conflicts and foster project teams to work collaboratively under the guidance of the
goals.
(5) Phase of involvement: Early and active involvement of the owner, general contractor, and
major subcontractors help to make the design meet the owner’s requirements within the budget
provided, reduce constructability issues, and enhance team collaboration, which makes
construction much more efficient.
(6) Manage: Strategies or leadership promoting team collaboration enhance the level of
integration of interorganizational teams and benefit IPD implementation.

126

(7) Negotiate: Effective negotiation mechanisms help project teams resolve disputes, reach
consensus efficiently, and keep team integration at a high level.

Secondary influencing factors:
(1) Risk management motivator: Project teams highly motivated by the effective risk
management features of IPD achieve greater benefits by being more active in the execution of
strategies related to reducing and sharing risk.
(2) Strong motivator: The innovative features and expected benefits on which the project teams
count highly become strong motivators that stimulate team members to dedicate themselves to
the IPD process, which is considered the most effective way for them to deliver the project.
(3) Information sharing mechanisms: Effective information sharing tools (e.g., meetings,
conference calls, or web-based systems) provide a good platform for the interaction and
collaboration of interorganizational teams, and facilitate a collaborative decision making process.
(4) Financial transparency: Sharing budget or cost information among major project team
members during design and construction phases on an ongoing basis helps identify and resolve
project cost issues and enhances the level of trust among project teams.
(5) Building Information Modeling (BIM): BIM as a tool requires team collaboration to work
synergistically with IPD and foster information sharing in an IPD project, and makes the design
more accurate and the construction more efficient.

Based on the analysis results, the researcher develops five propositions that need to be tested by
future researchers:

127

Proposition 1. Good innovation climate and communication mechanisms in a project team
facilitate IPD implementation as an innovation.
Proposition 2. Good innovation climate improves the project team’s communication
mechanisms and further facilitates IPD implementation as an innovation.
Proposition 3. Positive team communication mechanisms provide a good climate for innovation
and further facilitate IPD implementation as an innovation.
Proposition 4. Large scale projects have a better climate for innovation implementation than do
small scale projects.
Proposition 5. If a project team did not have good communication, it would be difficult to form
an effective innovation-values fit.

These propositions reflect the importance of climate to successful IPD implementation as
presented in Klein and Sorra’s(1996) model. Furthermore, these propositions show the role of
communication in innovation implementation and its relationship in climate and innovationvalues fit. These findings are established in the context of IPD innovation and match conclusions
found in prior literature. Generalization of some findings to innovation implementation in the
AEC industry and general industry, however, need to be further tested.
To reach these findings, this study develops an IPD implementation evaluation system to assess
the implementation of IPD in construction projects as an innovation. The system provides
metrics, measurements, standards, and a scoring approach for evaluation. The quotation coding
results, as a middle product of the study generated by the data coding process, are provided as a
guide during the execution phase of the evaluation system. Future research can introduce

128

quantitative analysis in similar studies by employing social network analysis and conducting a
survey.

129

APPENDICES

130

APPENDIX A

Metrics description and measuring criteria

Table 16 Metrics description and measuring criteria
Constructs

Metrics

Measure
Description

Standards
Good

1. climate

1.1 Team member
skill levels
1.1.1 Major project Number of IPD projects
1
participants' IPD delivered or has adequate
experience
experience on design-build
method
1.1.1.1 Owner
Number of IPD projects an 1
owner experienced or has
adequate experience on
design-build method
1.1.1.2 Architect Number of IPD projects an 1
architect delivered or has
adequate experience on
design-build method

Neutral

Poor

0, but has abundant
design-build
experience

0

0, but has abundant
design-build
experience

0

0, but has abundant
design-build
experience

0

1.1.1.3 General
Contractor

Number of IPD projects a 1
contractor delivered or has
adequate experience on
design-build method

0, but has abundant
design-build
experience

0

1.1.1.4 Other

Number of IPD projects 1
other parties delivered or
has adequate experience on
design-build method

0, but has abundant
design-build
experience

0

131

Table 16 (cont’d)
1.1.2 Training

1.1.3 Previous
Cooperation
Experience

1.2Rewards
1.2.1 Motivators
1.2.1.1 Market
Advantage

The amount of training or Adequate training
project related team
with positive
building strategies
description and/or
commentaries

Stated without
description or
commentaries

No or not adequate

To what extent the project All major project
Some of major project None of major project
parties had a good previous participants have good participants have good participants have
working experience
cooperation
cooperation
cooperation
experience
experience
experience or have a
bad experience

Whether market advantage Yes and stated with No, but IPD is seen to No and no benefit
is the major motivator of positive description be very helpful in this related to this
implementing IPD in this and/or commentaries area
motivator is stated
project

1.2.1.2 Cost
Predictability

Whether cost predictability Yes and stated with No, but IPD is seen to No and no benefit
is the major motivator of positive description be very helpful in this related to this
implementing IPD in this and/or commentaries area
motivator is stated
project

1.2.1.3 Schedule
Predictability

Whether schedule
Yes and stated with No, but IPD is seen to No and no benefit
predictability is the major positive description be very helpful in this related to this
motivator of implementing and/or commentaries area
motivator is stated
IPD in this project

1.2.1.4 Risk
Management

Whether risk management Yes and stated with No, but IPD is seen to No and no benefit
is the major motivator of positive description be very helpful in this related to this
implementing IPD in this and/or commentaries area
motivator is stated
project

132

Table 16 (cont’d)
1.2.1.5 Technical
Complexity

1.2.1.6 Strong
Motivator

Whether technical
Yes and stated with
complexity is the major
positive description
motivator of implementing and/or commentaries
IPD in this project
Whether the initiators feel Yes and stated with
that IPD is the only or the positive description
most efficient way to
and/or commentaries
deliver the process in terms
of any of the motivators
above

1.2.2 Reward
structure
1.2.2.1 Incentives Whether incentives are
provided

Yes, with positive
description and/or
commentaries
provided
Yes, with positive
description and/or
commentaries
provided
Fully waived

1.2.2.2 Risk Pool

Whether risk pool is
established

1.2.2.3 Liability
Waiver

To what extent the
liabilities are waived or the
"no sue" clause is included
Whether the project have Yes, with positive
insurance for IPD
description and/or
commentaries
provided

1.2.2.4 Insurance
for IPD

1.3 Absence of
Obstacles

133

No, but IPD is seen to No and no benefit
be very helpful in this related to this
area
motivator is stated
NA

No

Yes but without
description or
commentaries

No reward

Yes but without
description or
commentaries

No risk pool

Partially waived

Not waived

Yes but without
description or
commentaries

No IPD insurance

Table 16 (cont’d)
1.3.1 Respond to
complaints

1.3.2 Remove
Obstacles

1.3.3 Exhibits no
obstacles

To what extent the
participants' complaints
about IPD are responded to
effectively

The complaints are The complaints are
responded effectively, not responded or the
but without
responses are not
description or
effective.
example provided
To what extent the
Have effective
Have effective
No strategy or the
obstacles are removed
strategies to remove strategies, but without strategies provided are
effectively
obstacles, with
description or
not effective at all.
descriptions or
example, or the
examples provided
strategies are not very
effective
Whether the report states Yes, the report states NA
No, there were
that the case study exhibits that the case study
obstacles no matter
no obstacles
exhibits no obstacles
they were removed or
not

1.4 Coordination
mechanisms
1.4.1 Decision
The extent to which the
making system
project teams make
decisions in a participatory
manner
1.4.1.1 Aligned
To what extent the project
Project Goals
goals are made together by
major project parties and
agreed by all team
members.
1.4.2 Information
sharing
mechanisms

The complaints are
responded effectively
with description or
example provided

High participatory
with description or
example provided

High participatory
Low participatory or
without description or no participatory
example provided or (autocratical decision
medium participatory making)
Most goals or all the Part of the goals
A few goals or none
goals
of the goals

134

Table 16 (cont’d)
1.4.2.1 Financial
Transparency
1.4.2.2 Building
Information
Modeling (BIM)

1.4.2.3 Lean
Construction
Related Tools
1.4.2.3.1 Last
Planner System

Whether open book
accounting is used

Yes and stated with
positive description
and/or commentaries
To what extent BIM is used Yes, use intensively
and reached the goals of
and most goals are
project participants
reached

Yes but stated without No or not used
description or
effectively
commentaries
Yes, use intensively No, not used or
but some main goals implement failure
are not achieved OR
only use some
function of BIM and
goals are reached

Whether LPS is used

Yes but stated without No or not used
description or
effectively
commentaries
Yes but stated without No or not used
description or
effectively
commentaries
Yes but stated without No or not used
description or
effectively
commentaries
Yes but stated without No or not used
description or
effectively
commentaries
Yes but stated without No or not used
description or
effectively
commentaries

1.4.2.3.2 Target
Value Design

Whether TVD is used

1.4.2.3.3 A3

Whether A3 is used

1.4.2.3.4 A4

Whether A4 is used

1.4.2.3.5 Choosing Whether CBA is used
by Advantage
1.4.2.3.6 Visual
management

Whether visual
management is used

Yes and stated with
positive description
and/or commentaries
Yes and stated with
positive description
and/or commentaries
Yes and stated with
positive description
and/or commentaries
Yes and stated with
positive description
and/or commentaries
Yes and stated with
positive description
and/or commentaries

Yes and stated with Yes but stated without No or not used
positive description description or
effectively
and/or commentaries commentaries

135

Table 16 (cont’d)
1.4.2.3.7 Daily
huddle

Whether daily huddle is
used

Yes and stated with
positive description
and/or commentaries
1.4.2.3.8 Other
Whether other tools are
Yes and stated with
Tools
used
positive description
and/or commentaries
1.4.3 Confidence in To what extent the project High confidence
project
team members have
management
confidence about the
success of the project
1.4.4 Strategies
1.4.4.1 Early
The phase when general
Schematic Design
Involvement
contractors and
subcontractors are involved
1.4.4.1.1 Phase of When did general
Schematic Design
Involvement
contractors and
subcontractors get involved
1.4.4.1.2 Early
To what extent the early
Very effective, with
Involvement
involvement strategy is
description or
Effectiveness
implemented effectively example provided

Yes but stated without No or not used
description or
effectively
commentaries
Yes but stated without No or not used
description or
effectively
commentaries
Medium Confidence Low or no confidence

design development Construction
or construction
document
design development Construction
or construction
document
Very effective, but
Not effective
without description or
example, or somewhat
effective
1.4.4.2 Co-location To what extent the major Most or all major
Only for part of the No
project participants work participants during the team or part of the
together at the same place. whole delivery
project delivery
process
process
1.5 Trust

To what extent project
All positive comments Neutral comments or negative comments
participants give positive
have both positive and
comments in terms of trust
negative comments
between team members.

136

Table 16 (cont’d)
Very willing, and with Very willing, but
Not willing
2. Values Fit
2.1 Commitment To what extent project
participants are willing to description or
without description or
devote time, resource and example provided
example, or somewhat
energy to the IPD process
willing
2.2 Culture fit

3.
3.1 Monitor
Communication

The extent to which the
Yes and stated with
host organization typically description or
??? participatory and
example
collaborative project
management tools;
information is shared not
hoarded

Yes but stated without No
description or
example

Whether the project
Yes, with description Yes but without
participants points out the or example provided description or
problems in the project
example
which they might not be
responsible for

3.2 Manage

To what extent the delivery Management
processes are organized
strategies effectively
effectively to encourage the encourage the team
project participants to work collaboration, with
collaboratively.
description or
example provided

3.3 Challenge

Whether team members try Yes, with description Yes but without
to use new methods to
or example provided description or
benefit the project delivery
example

137

No

Management
No manage strategies
strategies effectively are used to encourage
encourage the team collaboration or the
collaboration, but
strategies are not
without description or effective at all
example, or the
strategies are not very
effective
No

Table 16 (cont’d)
3.4 Negotiate

1) Conflicts /
1) Conflicts /
controversies are
controversies are not
resolved with
resolved because of
effective negotiation, poor negotiation. 2)
but without
The above
description or
information is
example. Or 2) The missing, and no
above information is disputation resolution
not given, but
strategies are provided
disputation resolution
strategies are provided
Very willing, and with Very willing, but
Not willing
4.
4.1 Commitment To what extent project
participants are willing to description or
without description or
Implementation to IPD process
devote time, resource and example provided
example, or somewhat
Effectiveness
energy to the IPD process
willing
in the future
To what extent the
Most or all problems Most or all problems A few or no problems
4.2 Problem
problems the participants are solved, with
are solved, but
are solved
Addressed
intend to solve by using
description or
without description or
IPD are solved
example provided
example, or only
some of the problems
are solved
To what the project is
Most times or always About 50%
Only a few times or
4.3 Adequate
delivered on time or ahead
never
Progress
of schedule at specific
phase
5. Innovation
Effectiveness

To what extent project
participants resolved
conflict and / or
controversies effectively.

Conflicts /
controversies are
resolved with
effective negotiation,
with description or
example provided

Yes and stated with
5.1 Project quality Whether positive
commentaries are stated by examples
project participants

138

Yes but stated without No, there are negative
examples
commentaries.

Table 16 (cont’d)
5.1.1 Turnover
Quality

To what extent the owner Very satisfied, with
satisfies with the turnover description or
quality of the project
example provided

Very satisfied, but
Unsatisfied
without description or
example, or somewhat
satisfied

5.1.2 System
Quality

To what extent the owner
satisfies with the system
quality of the project

5.1.3 Overall
Quality

To what extent the project Very satisfied, with
team satisfies with the
description or
overall quality of the
example provided
project

Very satisfied, but
Unsatisfied
without description or
example, or somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied, but
Unsatisfied
without description or
example, or somewhat
satisfied

Very satisfied, with
description or
example provided

5.1.4 Owner's
To what extent the owner Very satisfied, with
satisfaction to cost satisfies with the cost
description or
performance of the project example provided
5.2 Cost
5.2.1 Perceived
Whether the project
Yes, it costs less
Cost Performance participants perceive that
IPD project costs less than
traditional projects
5.2.2 Actual Cost
Growth

Whether the project costs
less comparing to project
using traditional delivery
method

Yes, it costs less

5.3 Schedule

139

Very satisfied, but
Unsatisfied
without description or
example, or somewhat
satisfied
It is similar

No, it costs more

It is similar

No, it costs more

Table 16 (cont’d)
5.3.1 Perceived
Schedule
Performance

Whether the project
Yes, it needs less
It is similar
No, it needs more
participants perceive that time
time
IPD project needs less time
than traditional projects.
5.3.2 Actual
Whether the IPD project Yes, it needs less
It is similar
No, it needs more
Schedule Growth needs less time comparing time
time
to project using traditional
delivery method
No, it has more
5.4 Change Order Whether the IPD project Yes, it has less change It is similar
has less change orders
orders.
change orders.
comparing to project using
traditional delivery method
Whether the project has
Yes, it has less safety It is similar
No, it has more safety
5.5 Safety
less safety issues
issues
issues
comparing to project using
traditional delivery method
Unsatisfied
5.6 Participants’ To what extent the project Very satisfied, with Very satisfied, but
participants satisfy with the description or
without description or
Satisfaction
IPD process
example provided
example, or somewhat
satisfied
The project exceeds The project reaches The project does not
5.7 Sustainability Whether the project
achieved the sustainable
the sustainable goals the sustainable goals achieve the
goals or the LEED
or achieve a higher or intended LEED
sustainable goals or
Certification level the
level of LEED
Certification level
the intended LEED
project team intended to
Certification
Certification level
achieve

140

APPENDIX B

Structured Interview

Sections
Section1. Basic Information
Section2. Climate/Structures
Section3. Innovation-Values Fit
Section4. Communication Mechanisms
Section5. Innovation Effectiveness

Section1. Basic Information
1. Respondent Information
Name: _ _______________________________________________
Position/ Title: __________________________________________
Company: _____________________________________________
E-mail Address: ________________________________________
Phone Number: _________________________________________
Case Study Project Name: _

2. Project Profile
Building Size: _____________________________________
Building Type: ☐ Residential Building

☐ Commercial Building

☐ Hospital

☐ Industry facility,

☐ Other ____________

Number of floors: _______________________________________

141

Location: ______________________________________________
Owner: ______________________________________________
Type of owner: ☐Public

☐Private

☐ Developer

☐K-12

☐Higher Education

☐Other_______

3. Tiers of Project Participants
Project parties
Owner Architect
Project
Tiers

Contractor

Subcontractors

Suppliers

Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3

Section2. Climate/Structures
In this section, you will be asked some questions about the team skill levels to master innovation,
project reward structure and obstacles to assess the climate and structures of your organization
for innovation application. Please ask the following questions based on your experience in this
project or the specific requirement of the question.

1. The skill level of team members
1) What, if any, prior experiences have you had in IPD projects (either philosophy or
contractual) before?
2) (If applicable) Please briefly describe those projects.
3) To what extent have you worked with the other parties in the project team before?

142

4) To what extent have you ever been involved in sustainable construction projects before
(i.e., LEED® project)?
5) What, if any prior projects have you use collaborative deliver methods (i.e., partnering,
design-build)?
6) You quit IPD, but were you satisfied with the skill levels of the project participants or not
(incentives/incentives management efforts to remove obstacles for implement)?
7) What communication tools did you use?
8) Have there been any major changes (other than the change of delivery method) in the
project so far? [If yes= who requested the change(s)? What was the impact of the
change(s) to the project?]

2. Reward Structure
1) To your best knowledge, why is IPD being pursued in this project?
2) What were your motivations (individual aspect and organizational aspect) to join this IPD
project?
3) What kinds of rewards will be given to you and your organization contractually for IPD
adoption?
4) What kinds of rewards will be given if any for performance, process contributions etc.?
5) Do you have more thoughts on reward of joining an IPD project to you before you
decided to adopt it?

3. Obstacles
1) What, if any, obstacles were there during project team procurement?

143

2) Were there any obstacles for choosing IPD in this project? [If yes= please tell me about
each obstacle.]
3) Are there any obstacles (sharing risk, collaboration, etc.) for you to participate in this IPD
project so far?
4) Do you have any comments about obstacles in this IPD project?

4. Coordination Mechanisms
In this section you will be ask some questions about decision making system, information
sharing patterns and confidence in project management which respect the coordination
mechanisms of construction teams. Please answer the follow questions based on your experience
in this project.

a) Decision making system
4. What were the general processes followed and the factors considered to making
important decisions in this project?
5. To what extent was everyone in the project able to unify their different thoughts and
perspectives to reach final decisions on the project? If you were able to reach unity in
your collective decision making, how was this achieved?
6. Who took part in what major decision making in this project?
7. Did IPD help with the decision making? If so, how?
8. Did IPD hinder decision making? If so, how?

b) Information sharing patterns (survey available)

144

1) What kind of information sharing tools (e.g. e-mail, web-based system, BIM) do you
use in this project?
2) What kind of information do you share in this project? Whom do you share with?
3) To what extent do those tools help with team collaboration?
4) To what extent do you share information with other parties actively or with the
requests of others?
5) Has the information sharing process been effective? Why/why not?
6) Is there anything you would like to talk about information sharing?
c) Confidence in project management (survey available)
1) What, if any, controversies have appeared in the project so far? How was it handled?
2) How do you handle different opinions in project team? How will this action/these
actions influence the collaboration of the teams?
3) In the project so far, have you been convinced to follow and trust a different opinion?
What happened?
4) So far, have you had to convince other members or teams to follow and trust your
opinion which was different from theirs? How?
5) Is there a project leader in this project to manage information exchange on a regular
basis? [If yes= How is it conducted?]
6) Is there anything you want to share about confidence in project management?

Section3. Innovation-Values Fit

145

In this project you will be asked some questions about project commitment and culture-fit to
assess the innovative value-fit of your company. Please answer the following questions based on
your experience in this project.

1. Commitment
1) How willing were you to devote time, resources and energy to this IPD project?
2) What is your commitment to the IPD process?
3) How did you participate in this IPD project and collaborated with other participants?
What did you learn from this IPD project so far?
4) Who suggested using IPD in this project?
5) How confident were you about the successful application of IPD in this project when
you joined in? Has your perception changed so far? Why or why not?
6) Did any of the major parties/trades have problems in their job with IPD or related to
the conduct of IPD (e.g., openly shared information or not)?
2. Culture fit (survey available)
1) Was the conduct of IPD on this project make this experience any different than your
previous experiences? [If yes= in what ways this experience differed from your
pervious experiences?]
2) The following are some innovative features about IPD project. Please explain how the
features fit or not in the culture of your organization.

146

Innovative Features in IPD Project (Created based on AIA 2007)

Categories

Applicable
or not
(check the
box)

Innovative Features

Extent of fit
(Use Likert
Scale from 1-5)

Process
Planning-Design
☐
Charrettes
Design Process Target Value Design
☐
Set
based
Design-Early
☐
Contribution
Reduced Risk
☐
Risk
Management
Shared Risk
☐
Performance Compensation
☐
Compensation/
Behavior
Compensation
Reward
☐
Evaluation
Building
Information
☐
Communicatio Modeling (BIM)
n Technology
Project
Documentation
☐
Management Software
Agreements
Relational Contract
☐
IPD Training
☐
Sessions
☐
Project Meetings
☐
Communicatio Daily Huddle
☐
n Tools
Project Steward
☐
Commitment Log
☐
A3's Documents and Project
☐
Newsletter
(1: not fit at all; 2: fit a little 3: fit normally 4: fit a lot; 5; fit perfectly )

3) Do you have to make some changes about the traditional culture of your organization
to make it fit for the IPD execution? If yes, to what extent are you willing to make the
changes?
4) How do you balance conflict or lack of “fit,” if there is any conflict or lack of “fit,”
between your organization culture and the IPD features?

147

5) Is there any other comment you want to share about culture fit of IPD in your
organization?

Section4. Communication Mechanisms
The purpose of this section is to assess team communication mechanisms from four perspective
of monitor, manage, challenge, negotiate and integrate. Please answer the following questions
based on your experience in this project.

1. Monitor (survey available)
1) Who was responsible for monitoring the internal or external factors (prerequisite
work need to be finished by other teams, material delivery, weather, teamwork)
which might influence the project?
2) To what extent are members of your team encouraged to monitor those factors? How
are members encouraged?
3) Do you have some examples that shows the advantage of monitoring or pitfall of not
monitoring in this project?

2. Manage (survey available)
1) What strategies (e.g. schedule, project control) do you use to improve the
performance of the team?
2) How would you describe the effectiveness of those strategies so far (during IPD
period)?
3) How you promote the collaboration within the team and with other teams?

148

4) How would you describe the effectiveness of those collaborations so far (during IPD
period)?
5) Any new management tools (e.g., target value design, value stream mapping) you use
with adoption of IPD in this project? [If yes = what are they?]

3. Challenge (survey available)
1) Did do try to adopt or accept some new ideas which your organization is not familiar
with in this project? What are they?
2) Did you encourage the members of your organization to challenge the existing
mechanism with this IPD project and provide some new methods or ideas to this
project? How did that go?
3) Do you think challenging existing mechanism can contribute to the performance of
this project? How? Do you have any examples from the project so far?

4. Negotiate (survey available)
1) How did everyone perform in the negotiation process? Was the process efficient? [If
so, how could it have been better?]
2) If known, what is your main principle (e.g., refuse any changes if you are right; will
to compromise your approach to contribute to the whole project) in negotiation to
reach a consensus?
3) In your opinion, what kind negotiation processes are the best for the success of the
project? Which is useful and which is not useful for this project?
4) Is there any specific problems leading to conflicts due to or about IPD? Please explain.

149

5) Has there been a situation that required negotiation so far in this project? Please
briefly tell me about it.
6) Did anyone take a central role in conflict management and negotiation? How?

5. Integrate
1)Who worked as integrator between tiers? How did they work?
2)What did they do to enable or hinder communication and information exchange

Section5. Implementation Effectiveness
In this section you will be asked some questions of different criterion variables including
commitment to the IPD process, problem addressed, making adequate process, project quality,
construction performance and project performance at the end of construction completion.

5. Commitment to the IPD process (survey available)
(Use the same question as Section 4-1 commitment)
1) After this experience in your future projects, how willing are you to devote time,
resources and energy to the IPD project?
2) What is your commitment to IPD project in the future?
3) Are you likely to pursue IPD project in the future? Why or why not?
4) Do you have any further feedback?

6. Problem addressed

150

1) Have there been any problems about time lost, communication loops and changes
appearing in the project so far? What are they?
2) What is the root cause of that problem and which participants need to be involved to
solve the problem? How do you solve it?
3) Have IPD features contributed to or hindered problem solving in this project? Please
explain.
4) How satisfied are you with the overall process?
5) Based on lessons learned in this project, what would you do again or change in future
project?

7. Making adequate progress compared to traditional approaches
1) How satisfied are you with the progress made in the project’s current phases?
2) Does IPD promote or hinder this progress flow? How so? If possible, please compare
IPD as promoting or hindering with previous experiences and earlier phases of the
project?

8. Project quality
1) Have there been any quality issues in the project so far? If yes, how will you fix it?
2) In what ways has IPD contributed to your positive or negative perceptions about this
project and process flow?
3) How does IPD help with the improvement of project quality and process flow?

9. Construction performance

151

1) What is the amount of request for information for the project so far?
2) How satisfied are you with delivery speed of the project? [Delivery speed= Area/
Total Time/ 30 (sf./month)]
3) What factors impacted the delivery speed of the project?
4) What do you think of the cost growth and cost performance of the project?
5) Did IPD contribute to design quality and implementation of sustainable features so far
(during the IPD period)?

152

APPENDIX C

Consent Form for Interview
Research Participant Information and Consent Form

You are being asked to participate in a research study. Investigators are required to provide a
consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to
explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision.
Please feel free to ask the researchers/investigators any questions you may have.
Study Title: Implementation of IPD as an Innovation in Construction Industry
Researcher and Title: Dr. Sinem Korkmaz, Weida Sun (Graduate Assistant)
Department and Institution: School of Planning, Design and Construction; Michigan State
University
Address and Contact Information: 552 W. Circle Drive Room 405A, East Lansing, MI 48824
Sponsors: MSU, NSF pending.
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
 You are being asked to participate in a research study of adoption of innovation in
construction project teams.
 You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you recently got involved
with a project delivered via the integrated project delivery (IPD) method.
 From this study, the investigators aim to learn the ways construction project teams adopt IPD
as an innovation.
 Your participation in this study will take about an hour.
o We received your name via the project manager on the IPD project you worked on.
o In the entire study, about 50 people are being asked to participate.
WHAT YOU WILL DO
 You will be asked to participate in a structured interview. The interview will be audio
recorded for research purposes.
 In the interview, you will be asked questions about climate/structure, innovation value-fit,
communication behaviors, and implementation effectiveness for innovation adoption. You
will be asked to answer the questions based on your experience in the given IPD project.
 After transcribing the interviews, we will share your interview transcription with you to
receive your verification on the text before we code or further analyze it for our research.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
 You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your
participation in this study may contribute to the understanding of factors which will
contribute to IPD adoption or any other innovation adoption processes in the industry. Your
company might also benefit from the results of our study.
POTENTIAL RISKS
 There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study.
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
153










The entire interview records, transcriptions, interview notes, and survey results (i.e., hard
copies) will be locked in a file cabinet, which only the investigators can access.
The data for this project will be coded in such a way before its use in any publications so that
participants cannot be identified. The key to this coding will be kept separately in the
password-protected computer, which only the investigators can access. Except the
investigators, no one will be able to link the data to the participants in the published
outcomes. The interview data for this project will be kept completely confidential. The
Institutional Review Board (IRB) has access to them if when necessary.
The data collected in interviews will be audio recorded for research purposes only and will
remain confidential. Research results will never disclose any specific information about case
studies or study participants; Information about the participants will be kept confidential to
the maximum extent allowed by law.
The data will be stored or a minimum of three years after research closing.
The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the
identities of all research participants will remain anonymous.
The interview will be audiotaped for only research purpose.
 I agree to allow audiotaping of the interview.
Yes
No
Initials____________

YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW
 Participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to
which you are otherwise entitled. You may discontinue participation at any time without
penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
 You have the right to say no.
 You may change your mind at any time and withdraw.
 You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time.
COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY
There is no cost to you to participate in this survey and/or interview.
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers (Weida Sun: sunweida@msu.edu, cell:
(517) 580-9557; Dr. Sinem Korkmaz: korkmaz@msu.edu, 517-353-3252)
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT
Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.
________________________________________
Signature
You will be given a copy of this form to keep.
154

_____________________________
Date

APPENDIX D

Consent Form for Project Data
Research Participant Information and Consent Form

You are being asked to participate in a research study. Researchers are required to provide a
consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to
explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision.
Please feel free to ask the researchers/investigators any questions you may have.
Study Title: Implementation of IPD as an Innovation in Construction Industry
Researcher and Title: Dr. Sinem Korkmaz, Weida Sun (Graduate Assistant)
Department and Institution: School of Planning, Design and Construction; Michigan State
University
Address and Contact Information: 552 W. Circle Drive Room 405A, East Lansing, MI 48824
Sponsor: MSU, NSF pending.
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
 You are being asked to participate in a research study of adoption of innovation in
construction project teams.
 We will collect project related information exchange from the project manager of the
integrated project delivery (IPD) project you were involved with which might include your
names, actions, and communications throughout the case of this project. Documentation we
will collect include e-mails, meeting minutes, and any other web based information
exchange.
 We will analyze the collected data via social network analyses, qualitative data analyses, and
process maps.
 From this study, the researchers aim to learn the ways construction project teams adopt IPD
as an innovation.
WHAT YOU WILL DO
 You will only be asked to give permission to the researchers to use the project information
exchange logs in the IPD project you are involved with. These logs include your name and
your project related actions.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
 You will not directly benefit from this study when you participate in. However, your
participation in this study may help you to understand the factors which will contribute to
IPD adoption or any other innovation adoption processes in the industry. Your company
might also benefit from the results of our study.
POTENTIAL RISKS
 There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study.
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

155








All the digital data will be stored in secured computer with password that only the
researchers have access to. All the hard copy of collected data will be stored in a file cabinet
that only the researchers have access to.
Collected data for this study will be coded before it is use in research publications in such a
way that you will not be identified. The key to this code will be kept separately in a computer
with password that only the researchers have access to. Except the study investigators, no one
will be able to link data to you in the published outcomes. The raw and coded data for this
project will be kept confidential.
Research results will never disclose any specific information about case studies or study
participants; Information about the participants will be kept confidential to the maximum
extent allowed by law.
The data will be stored or a minimum of three years after researching closing. The
Institutional Review Board (IRB) has access to it if necessary.
The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the
identities of all research participants will remain anonymous.

YOUR RIGHTS TO PRTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW
 Participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to
which you are otherwise entitled. You may discontinue participation at any time without
penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
 You have the right to say no.
 You may change your mind at any time and withdraw.
COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY
There is no cost to you to participate in this survey and/or interview.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher: (Weida Sun: sunweida@msu.edu, cell:
(517) 580-9557; Dr. Sinem Korkmaz: korkmaz@msu.edu, 517-353-3252)
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT
Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.
________________________________________
Signature
You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

156

_____________________________
Date

APPENDIX E

Quotation Quantity of Content Analysis and Case Study

Table 17 Quotation Quantity of Content Analysis and Case Study
#

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Metrics

1.1.1.1 Owner
1.1.1.2 Architect
1.1.1.3 General
Contractor
1.1.1.4 Others
1.1.2 Training
1.1.3 Previous
Cooperation Experience
1.2.1.1 Market
Advantage
1.2.1.2 Cost
Predictability
1.2.1.3 Schedule
Predictability
1.2.1.4 Risk
Management
1.2.1.5 Technical
Complexity
1.2.1.6 Strong
Motivator
1.2.2.1 Incentives
1.2.2.2 Risk Pool
1.2.2.3 Liability Waiver
1.2.2.4 Insurance for
IPD
1.3.1 Respond to
compaints
1.3.2 Remove
Obstacles
1.3.3 Exhibits no
obstacles
1.4.1 Decision making
system
1.4.1.1 Aligned Project
Goals

Content Analysis Projects

Case
Study
Proj. B

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P
10
1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

P
11
0
0
0

P
12
1 1
1 2
1 3

0
5
5

0
1
1

0
2
5

0
2
1

0
2
1

0
0
0

0
0
1

0
1
1

0
2
0

0
0
3

0
2
1

0
1
1

1
4
3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

2

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

2

1

0

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

1

0

2

2

0

4
4
2
1

3
1
3
1

2
2
1
1

2
1
1
1

4
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
0
0
1

1
2
1
1

1
0
0
0

2
1
1
1

1
1
1
0

3
1
1
1

2
1
0
0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

5

3

2

6

0

0

0

2

0

1

4

11

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

2

1

4

5

0

1

3

1

1

3

3

9

3

2

1

2

2

0

0

1

2

1

1

2

4

157

Table 17 (cont’d)
22 1.4.2 Information
sharing mechanisms
23 1.4.2.1 Financial
Transparency
24 1.4.2.2 Building
Information Modeling
(BIM)
25 1.4.2.3 Lean
Construction Related
Tools
26 1.4.2.3.1 Last Planner
System
27 1.4.2.3.2 Target Value
Design
28 1.4.2.3.3 A3
29 1.4.2.3.4 A4
30 1.4.2.3.5 Choosing by
Advantage
31 1.4.2.3.6 Visual
management
32 1.4.2.3.7 Daily huddle
33 1.4.2.3.8 Other Tools
34 1.4.3 Confidence in
project management
35 1.4.4.1.1 Phase of
Involvement
36 1.4.4.1.2 Early
Involvement
Effectiveness
37 1.4.4.2 Co-location
38 1.5 Trust
39 2.1 Commitment
40 2.2 Culture fit
41 3.1 Monitor
42 3.2 Manage
43 3.3 Challenge
44 3.4 Negotiate
45 4.1 Commitment to IPD
process
46 4.2 Problem Addressed
47 4.3 Adequate Progress
48 5.1.1 Turnover Quality

5

7

2

4

7

2

1

0

1

1

1

7

9

2

2

2

1

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

2

1

5

7

7

2

1

1

1

4

8

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

4

2

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

4

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

3
2
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0
0
0

2
1
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
2

0
0
0

1
1
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
1
0

0
0
0

1
2
0

0
0
3

1

1

1

3

2

1

0

0

2

1

1

2

4

5

7

4

1

5

3

3

1

1

3

1

2

3

2
2
6
8
5
13
3
1
0

1
3
4
16
3
9
0
5
1

1
0
9
6
0
2
0
1
1

1
0
5
4
1
2
0
1
0

8
1
12
17
4
26
0
1
0

1
0
3
1
0
5
0
1
0

0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
0

1
0
0
3
0
2
0
1
1

0
1
1
2
0
5
2
2
0

1
2
1
5
0
3
0
0
1

8
2
5
12
0
14
2
3
0

0
8
18
40
5
17
2
6
5

1
0
0

3
0
0

0
0
0

1
0
0

3
1
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

1
0
0

1
0
0

1
0
0

0
0
0

5
0
0

3
0
0

158

Table 17 (cont’d)
49 5.1.2 System Quality
50 5.1.3 Overall Quality
51 5.1.4 Owner's
satisfaction to cost
52 5.2.1 Perceived Cost
Performance
53 5.2.2 Actual Cost
Growth
54 5.3.1 Perceived
Schedule Performance
55 5.3.2 Actual Schedule
Growth
56 5.4 Change Order
57 5.5 Safety
58 5.6 Participants's
Satisfaction
59 5.7 Sustainability

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1
0
0

0
0
2

0
0
0

0
0
0

2
0
0

0
0
0

1
0
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
2

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

159

APPENDIX F

Project Scores under Including Neutral Quotation Situation

Table 18 Project Scores under Including Neutral Quotation Situation
Content Analysis

Metrics
1.1.1.1 Owner
1.1.1.2 Architect
1.1.1.3 General contractor
1.1.1.4 Other
1.1.2 Training
1.1.3 Previous cooperation
experience
1.2.1.1 Market advantage
1.2.1.2 Cost predictability
1.2.1.3 Schedule
predictability
1.2.1.4 Risk management
1.2.1.5 Technical
complexity
1.2.1.6 Strong motivator
1.2.2.1 Incentives
1.2.2.2 Risk pool
1.2.2.3 Liability waiver
1.2.2.4 Insurance for IPD
1.3.1 Respond to complaints
1.3.2 Remove obstacles
1.3.3 Exhibits no obstacles

1
1.50
0.50
1.50
1.00
1.40
1.40

2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00

3
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.40

4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50

5
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
1.50

6
1.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

7
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.50

8
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.50

9
1.50
0.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

10
0.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.50

11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00

12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50

Total
12.00
10.00
12.00
12.00
14.15
15.80

Case
Study
Avg. Proj. B
1.00 0.50
0.83 0.75
1.00 0.83
1.00 1.50
1.18 1.25
1.32 0.83

1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 1.50 15.00
1.50 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 13.50
1.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 13.50

1.25
1.13
1.13

1.20
1.00
1.00

1.50 1.25 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 15.25
0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 11.50

1.27
0.96

1.00
1.00

1.00
0.88
1.13
1.25
1.50
1.00
1.33
1.00

1.21
1.12
1.07
0.92
0.75
1.04
1.19
1.04

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00

1.00
1.33
1.50
0.83
0.50
1.00
1.40
1.00

1.00
1.25
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.25
1.50
1.50
0.50
1.50
1.00
1.50

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

160

1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.50
1.25
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.25
1.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00

1.50
1.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

14.50
13.46
12.88
11.08
9.00
12.50
14.23
12.50

Table 18 (cont’d)
1.4.1 Decision-making
system
1.4.1.1 Aligned project
goals
1.4.2 Information-sharing
mechanisms
1.4.2.1 Financial
transparency
1.4.2.2 Building Information
Modeling (BIM)
1.4.2.3 Lean ConstructionRelated Tools
1.4.2.3.1 Last Planner
System
1.4.2.3.2 Target Value
Design
1.4.2.3.3 A3
1.4.2.3.4 A4
1.4.2.3.5 Choosing by
Advantage
1.4.2.3.6 Visual
management
1.4.2.3.7 Daily huddle
1.4.2.3.8 Other tools
1.4.3 Confidence in project
management
1.4.4.1.1 Phase of
involvement
1.4.4.1.2 Early involvement
effectiveness

1.50 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.00 1.50 1.33 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 16.98

1.42

0.78

1.50 1.25 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.50 1.50 1.50 14.75

1.23

0.50

1.50 1.43 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.43 17.11

1.43

1.06

1.50 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.38 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 15.38

1.28

1.00

1.44 0.75 1.00 1.20 1.21 1.21 1.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.50 14.57

1.21

1.00

1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00

0.92

1.00

1.38 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 13.13

1.09

1.00

1.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 12.88

1.07

1.00

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.50
1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.25
1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.50

1.04
1.02
1.04

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 13.00

1.08

1.00

1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 13.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.25 13.25
1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.50

1.08
1.10
0.96

1.00
1.00
0.83

1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 15.50

1.29

0.75

1.40 1.43 1.38 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.33 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 16.04

1.34

1.33

161

Table 18 (cont’d)
1.4.4.2 Colocation
1.5 Trust
2.1 Commitment
2.2 Culture fit
3.1 Monitor
3.2 Manage
3.3 Challenge
3.4 Negotiate
4.1 Commitment to IPD
process
4.2 Problem addressed
4.3 Adequate progress
5.1.1 Turnover quality
5.1.2 System quality
5.1.3 Overall quality
5.1.4 Owner's satisfaction
with cost
5.2.1 Perceived cost
performance
5.2.2 Actual cost growth
5.3.1 Perceived schedule
performance
5.3.2 Actual schedule
growth
5.4 Change order
5.5 Safety
5.6 Participants' satisfaction
5.7 Sustainability

1.50
1.25
1.17
1.38
1.40
1.35
1.33
1.00
1.00

0.50
1.33
1.38
1.16
1.33
1.39
1.00
1.20
1.00

0.50
1.00
1.22
1.33
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.50

0.50
1.00
1.00
1.38
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.08
1.12
1.50
1.38
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.17
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.33
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.50
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.40
1.50
1.50
1.00

1.50
1.50
0.50
1.20
1.00
1.17
1.00
1.00
1.50

1.44
1.50
1.30
1.21
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.33
1.00

12.44
14.08
12.06
13.68
13.73
16.07
13.33
14.03
13.00

1.04
1.17
1.01
1.14
1.14
1.34
1.11
1.17
1.08

1.00
1.19
0.97
1.08
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.75
1.40

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

14.40
12.50
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00

1.20
1.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.33
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.50

1.04

1.00

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 14.50
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.25 12.75

1.21
1.06

1.00
1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 13.50

1.13

1.00

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.50
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.00
1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 13.25

1.13
1.00
1.10

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.50

1.04

0.50

162

APPENDIX G

Project Scores under Excluding Neutral Quotation Situation

Table 19 Project Scores under Excluding Neutral Quotation Situation
Metrics

1.1.1.1 Owner
1.1.1.2 Architect
1.1.1.3 General contractor
1.1.1.4 Other
1.1.2 Training
1.1.3 Previous cooperation
experience
1.2.1.1 Market advantage
1.2.1.2 Cost predictability
1.2.1.3 Schedule
predictability
1.2.1.4 Risk management
1.2.1.5 Technical
complexity
1.2.1.6 Strong motivator
1.2.2.1 Incentives
1.2.2.2 Risk pool
1.2.2.3 Liability waiver
1.2.2.4 Insurance for IPD
1.3.1 Respond to complaints
1.3.2 Remove obstacles
1.3.3 Exhibits no obstacles

Content Analysis
1
1.50
0.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.50

2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00

3
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50

4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50

5
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50

6
1.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

7
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.50

8
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.50

9
1.50
0.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

10
0.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.50

11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00

12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50

Total
12.00
10.00
12.00
12.00
14.50
16.00

Case
Study
Avg. Proj. B
1.00 0.50
0.83 0.50
1.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
1.21 1.50
1.33 0.83

1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 1.50 15.00
1.50 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 13.50
1.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 13.50

1.25
1.13
1.13

1.50
1.00
1.00

1.50 1.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 15.50
0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 11.50

1.29
0.96

1.00
1.00

1.00
0.50
1.17
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.21
1.17
1.10
0.92
0.75
1.04
1.21
1.04

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00

1.00
1.50
1.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
0.50
1.50
1.00
1.50

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

163

1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.50
1.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.50
1.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00

1.50
1.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

14.50
14.00
13.17
11.00
9.00
12.50
14.50
12.50

Table 19 (cont’d)
1.4.1 Decision-making
system
1.4.1.1 Aligned project
goals
1.4.2 Information-sharing
mechanisms
1.4.2.1 Financial
transparency
1.4.2.2 Building Information
Modeling (BIM)
1.4.2.3 Lean ConstructionRelated Tools
1.4.2.3.1 Last Planner
System
1.4.2.3.2 Target Value
Design
1.4.2.3.3 A3
1.4.2.3.4 A4
1.4.2.3.5 Choosing by
Advantage
1.4.2.3.6 Visual
management
1.4.2.3.7 Daily huddle
1.4.2.3.8 Other tools
1.4.3 Confidence in project
management
1.4.4.1.1 Phase of
involvement
1.4.4.1.2 Early involvement
effectiveness

1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 17.50

1.46

0.75

1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 15.00

1.25

0.50

1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 17.50

1.46

1.10

1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 16.00

1.33

1.00

1.50 0.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.50 15.25

1.27

1.00

1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00

0.92

1.00

1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 13.50

1.13

1.00

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 13.00

1.08

1.00

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.50
1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.50
1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.50

1.04
1.04
1.04

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 13.00

1.08

1.00

1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 13.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.50 13.50
1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.50

1.08
1.13
0.96

1.00
1.00
0.50

1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 15.50

1.29

0.50

1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 16.50

1.38

1.50

164

Table 19 (cont’d)
1.4.4.2 Colocation
1.5 Trust
2.1 Commitment
2.2 Culture fit
3.1 Monitor
3.2 Manage
3.3 Challenge
3.4 Negotiate
4.1 Commitment to IPD
process
4.2 Problem addressed
4.3 Adequate progress
5.1.1 Turnover quality
5.1.2 System quality
5.1.3 Overall quality
5.1.4 Owner's satisfaction
with cost
5.2.1 Perceived cost
performance
5.2.2 Actual cost growth
5.3.1 Perceived schedule
performance
5.3.2 Actual schedule
growth
5.4 Change order
5.5 Safety
5.6 Participants' satisfaction
5.7 Sustainability

1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00

0.50
1.50
1.50
1.36
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

0.50
1.00
1.33
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.50

0.50
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.17
1.17
1.50
1.45
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00

1.50
1.50
0.50
1.50
1.00
1.17
1.00
1.00
1.50

1.50
1.50
1.50
1.36
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00

12.50
14.50
13.00
14.88
14.00
17.12
13.50
14.50
13.00

1.04
1.21
1.08
1.24
1.17
1.43
1.13
1.21
1.08

1.00
1.30
0.95
1.13
1.00
0.86
1.00
0.70
1.50

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

14.50
12.50
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00

1.21
1.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.50

1.04

1.00

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 14.50
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.50 13.00

1.21
1.08

1.00
1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 13.50

1.13

1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.13
1.00
1.13
1.04

1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50

1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.50
1.00
1.00
1.50

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

165

1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

13.50
12.00
13.50
12.50

APPENDIX H

Quotation Coding Results
Table of Contents for Appendix H

Instruction of Quotation Source Coding ..................................................................................... 168
Content Analysis Projects ....................................................................................................... 168
Project 1 .................................................................................................................................. 168
General Information ............................................................................................................ 168
Positive................................................................................................................................ 169
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 189
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 194
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 194
Project 2 .................................................................................................................................. 195
General Information ............................................................................................................ 195
Positive................................................................................................................................ 195
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 206
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 214
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 216
Project 3 .................................................................................................................................. 217
General Information ............................................................................................................ 217
Positive................................................................................................................................ 218
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 224
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 227
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 228
Project 4 .................................................................................................................................. 229
General Information ............................................................................................................ 229
Positive................................................................................................................................ 230
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 235
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 237
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 239
Project 5 .................................................................................................................................. 240
General Information ............................................................................................................ 240
Positive................................................................................................................................ 240
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 260
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 265
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 268
Project 6 .................................................................................................................................. 269
General Information ............................................................................................................ 269
Positive................................................................................................................................ 269
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 273
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 276
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 276
Project 7 .................................................................................................................................. 277
General Information ............................................................................................................ 277
166

Positive................................................................................................................................ 278
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 281
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 282
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 283
Project 8 .................................................................................................................................. 284
General Information ............................................................................................................ 284
Positive................................................................................................................................ 285
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 288
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 289
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 290
Project 9 .................................................................................................................................. 291
General Information ............................................................................................................ 291
Positive................................................................................................................................ 292
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 296
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 298
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 299
Project 10 ................................................................................................................................ 300
General Information ............................................................................................................ 300
Positive................................................................................................................................ 301
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 308
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 309
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 309
Project 11 ................................................................................................................................ 311
General Information ............................................................................................................ 311
Positive................................................................................................................................ 312
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 317
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 318
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 319
Project 12 ................................................................................................................................ 321
General Information ............................................................................................................ 321
Positive................................................................................................................................ 322
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 342
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 346
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 346
Case Study-Project B .............................................................................................................. 347
Positive................................................................................................................................ 347
Neutral................................................................................................................................. 359
Negative .............................................................................................................................. 373
Not Given ............................................................................................................................ 390

167

Instruction of Quotation Source Coding
The source information of each quotation is list in the following order:
Document ID: Case study number, project name-Quotation ID [quotation content(i.e. Document
#: Quotation #)] (location (i.e. page: location #)) (author)
Codes: [Metric]
For example, The code—“P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:55 [In the beginning of the
projec..] (19:2893-19:3155)
(Super) Codes: [Training]”—means that the author “Super”
(default name) code the sentence “In the beginning of the project...” under the metric “training”
and it is Quotation #55 locating at the nineteenth page of Primary Document 3 “01 Cathedral Hill
Hospital” , a PDF file.

Content Analysis Projects
Project 1
General Information
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:135 [Cathedral Hill Hospital] (13:132-13:156) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
Cathedral Hill Hospital
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:2 [Healthcare - New Construction] (14:208-14:236)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Healthcare - New Construction
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:1 [San Francisco, California] (14:174-14:198) (Super)
Codes: [Location]
San Francisco, California
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:3 [Single Multi-party Contract – ..] (14:250-14:283)
(Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Single Multi-party Contract – IFOA
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:140 [Single Multi-party Contract • ..] (16:4373-16:4553)
(Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Single Multi-party Contract
Integrated Agreement for Lean Project Delivery between Owner, Architect & CM/GC – also
referred as Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA)
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:4 [August 2007] (14:445-14:455) (Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
August 2007
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:5 [March 2015] (14:475-14:484) (Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
168

March 2015

Positive
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:28 [Sutter was fairly experienced ..] (17:357-17:590)
(Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner]
Sutter was fairly experienced with IPD and Lean Construction having completed the Fairfield
Medical Office two years before. On Fairfield, Sutter used an innovative IFOA agreement
created for them by attorney William A. Lichtig.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:73 [Of great value to this project..] (21:915-21:1291)
(Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor]
Of great value to this project was past experience in IPD and Lean Construction by Sutter, Boldt
and many key individuals of the IPD Team. The team leveraged their experience and resources,
which allowed them to further refine previously developed IPD process, such as the Target
Value Design plan and the Last Planner Process, for the Cathedral Hill Hospital project
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:146 [California Pacific Medical Cen..] (19:267-19:485)
(Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor]
California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) is an affiliate of Sutter Health, a large healthcare
owner that has pioneered IPD since 2005 (see Contract). Sutter and Boldt have experience with
IPD and Lean Construction
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:73 [Of great value to this project..] (21:915-21:1291)
(Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor]
Of great value to this project was past experience in IPD and
Lean Construction by Sutter, Boldt and many key individuals of the IPD Team. The team
leveraged their experience and resources, which allowed them to further refine previously
developed IPD process, such as the Target Value Design plan and the Last Planner Process, for
the Cathedral Hill Hospital project
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:146 [California Pacific Medical Cen..] (19:267-19:485)
(Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor]
California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) is an affiliate of Sutter Health, a large healthcare
owner that has pioneered IPD since 2005 (see Contract). Sutter and Boldt have experience with
IPD and Lean Construction
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:151 [Sutter and Boldt both studied ..] (20:1073-20:1215)
(Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [Owner] [General Contractor] [Team member IPD
experience]
Sutter and Boldt both studied IPD and Lean Construction for over seven years and had formed
key relationships through that mutual interest."

169

"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:73 [Of great value to this project..] (21:915-21:1291)
(Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor]
Of great value to this project was past experience in IPD and Lean Construction by Sutter, Boldt
and many key individuals of the IPD Team. The team leveraged their experience and resources,
which allowed them to further refine previously developed IPD process, such as the Target
Value Design plan and the Last Planner Process, for the Cathedral Hill Hospital project
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:146 [California Pacific Medical Cen..] (19:267-19:485)
(Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor]
California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) is an affiliate of Sutter Health, a large healthcare
owner that has pioneered IPD since 2005 (see Contract). Sutter and Boldt have experience with
IPD and Lean Construction
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:73 [Of great value to this project..] (21:915-21:1291)
(Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor]
Of great value to this project was past experience in IPD and Lean Construction by Sutter, Boldt
and many key individuals of the IPD Team. The team leveraged their experience and resources,
which allowed them to further refine previously developed IPD process, such as the Target
Value Design plan and the Last Planner Process, for the Cathedral Hill Hospital project
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:146 [California Pacific Medical Cen..] (19:267-19:485)
(Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor]
California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) is an affiliate of Sutter Health, a large healthcare
owner that has pioneered IPD since 2005 (see Contract). Sutter and Boldt have experience with
IPD and Lean Construction
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:151 [Sutter and Boldt both studied ..] (20:1073-20:1215)
(Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [Owner] [General Contractor] [Team member IPD
experience]
Sutter and Boldt both studied IPD and Lean Construction for over seven years and had formed
key relationships through that mutual interest."
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:55 [In the beginning of the projec..] (19:2893-19:3155)
(Super)
Codes: [Training]
In the beginning of the project, Sutter’s Facility, Planning, and Development (FPD)
representative regularly attended the Target Value Design and Last Planner meetings to help
coach people through the cultural and behavioral expectations of IPD and Lean.

170

P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:150 [Boldt, with their extensive ex..] (19:3865-19:4449)
(Super)
Codes: [Training]
Boldt, with their extensive experience and history with the Lean Construction Institute and real
commitment to continuous learning, served as a mentor to educate the Integrated Project
Delivery Team on Lean. Specifically, Boldt appointed one individual as the Value and Lean
Process Manager, responsible for incorporating Lean Construction practices into the IPD Team.
This individual trained team members in Lean practices and task management tools through
regular Study Action Groups. All team members, regardless of experience level, participated in
these groups.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:152 [All consultants that committed..] (20:2425-20:2582)
(Super)
Codes: [Training]
All consultants that committed to the project went through the Study Action Group training to
educate them in the philosophy of IPD and Lean Construction.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:78 [This project employed individu..] (21:4476-21:4766)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage][training]
This project employed individuals at multiple leadership levels to manage the integrated team
performance through education of the team on information exchange and process management
tools, planning of design and production sequencing and supporting continuous improvement
ideas.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:22 [Participants overwhelmingly in..] (15:439715:4517) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
Participants overwhelmingly indicated (92.2%) that their organizations had previous working
experience with each other.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:63 [Boldt is experienced in large-..] (20:1808-20:1938)
(Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [General Contractor]
Boldt is experienced in large-scale healthcare projects and Lean Construction and had a longstanding relationship with Sutter
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:139 [Furthermore, 60.9% of individu..] (16:132-16:394)
(Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience][Commitment]
Furthermore, 60.9% of individuals had previously worked with other team members. This past
experience was likely a factor in organizations’ willingness to embark on an integrated,
collaborative delivery model, still a very new model with several unknowns.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:151 [Sutter and Boldt both studied ..] (20:1073-20:1215)
(Super)

171

Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [Owner] [General Contractor] [Team member IPD
experience]
Sutter and Boldt both studied IPD and Lean Construction for over seven years and had formed
key relationships through that mutual interest.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:13 [Cost Predictability was Sutter..] (15:1149-15:1224)
(Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]
Cost Predictability was Sutter’s primary driver for using IPD as a company
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:137 [Schedule Predictability was an..] (15:157415:2117) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule Predictability was an important driver of using IPD because of several critical variables
bearing on the project. California instated a 2013 deadline for meeting seismic and seismic
retrofit requirements (California State Senate Bill 1953 and 1661). The complexity of the
building and permitting process in San Francisco will make that deadline difficult to meet. Aging
current facilities for CPMC demand investment to keep them functional, creating additional
financial incentives to complete the new facility quickly
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:17 [Reduced Risk was a major motiv..] (15:253015:2706) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
Reduced Risk was a major motivator for the owner to shift to IPD. Sutter realized that their
capital investments in construction could be better protected from risk with IPD
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:36 [The IFOA established a risk-po..] (17:372617:4045) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
The IFOA established a risk-pool that the architect, CM/GC, primary design consultants and
primary trade contractors were bound to. In this case, the IPD team members participating in the
pool put a percentage of their profit at risk to partially fund cost overruns or other project
liabilities if any occurred.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:39 [One of the revisions Sutter ha..] (18:791-18:1049)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
One of the revisions Sutter had made to their standard IFOA was the elimination of risk sharing
and incentives for pre-construction. Instead of putting 25% of preconstruction profits at risk, they
shifted to a 100% construction profits at risk model.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:142 [The architect and CM/GC placed..] (18:134-18:629)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]

172

The architect and CM/GC placed 25% of their preconstruction and construction fixed fee profits
at risk. At the time the contract was executed, the following additional parties were included in
the Risk Pool IPD Team:
Architect’s Consultants: Degenkolb Engineers (structural),
Silverman & Light Inc. (electrical), Ted Jacob Engineering
Group Inc. (M/P),
Trade Contractors: Rosendin Electric (electrical), Southland Industries (mechanical), Charles
Pankow Builders, Ltd. (concrete)
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:143 [The architect, however, is con..] (18:1150-18:1528)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
The architect, however, is concerned that these changes will negatively affect the target value
design process. With the original model, the team was incentivized to reduce costs below the
estimated maximum price during the design phase. The shift to construction-phase-only
incentives may result in the team holding onto cost savings ideas until construction starts.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:39 [One of the revisions Sutter ha..] (18:791-18:1049)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
One of the revisions Sutter had made to their standard IFOA was the elimination of risk sharing
and incentives for pre-construction. Instead of putting 25% of preconstruction profits at risk, they
shifted to a 100% construction profits at risk model.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:43 [Sutter’s IFOA Article 33.1 exp..] (18:1840-18:1968)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
Sutter’s IFOA Article 33.1 explicitly limits liability between all Risk Pool IPD Team members
(see Risk/Reward) and the owner.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:145 [At the time this case study wa..] (18:4079-18:4882)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
At the time this case study was conducted, the Cathedral Hill
Hospital IPD Team was still determining how the project specific insurance would be handled.
This project will be one of the first to use an insurance product designed specifically for
Integrated Project Delivery. Two major insurers visited the project site to familiarize their
understanding of the processes and will be presenting IPD insurance options to the team in
January 2011. General Liability and Professional Liability insurance is required for the architect
and the architect’s consultants. The contract requires standard CM/GC insurance, however as
noted above, the team will be using an IPD specific insurance product. It is yet to be determined
if this will be an owner or contractor controlled policy.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:189 [Because IPD was new for a larg..] (21:609-21:909)
(Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]

173

Because IPD was new for a large number of individuals on the team, the project moved
intentionally slow in the beginning. This allowed team members to develop and learn new
processes while getting to know each other. There was a great deal of time spent on planning
before design work began.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:147 [The team discovered a deficien..] (19:174019:2168) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [remove obstacles]
The team discovered a deficiency in owner involvement as they worked through the value added
list (a list of items identified as desirable by the owner but not previously budgeted). The team
realized they needed more input at the user group level, specifically clinical operations, to better
prioritize those items. The owner addressed this by bringing a representative from hospital
operations onto the project team.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:123 [Any changes to BIM software we..] (26:168426:1831) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [A3]
Any changes to BIM software were made following the A3 decision-making process (see
Implementation) and required consensus of the BIM Champions.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:120 [Meeting Frequency • Weekly Cor..] (25:230925:2575) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Information Sharing Patterns]
Meeting Frequency
• Weekly Core Group Meetings
• Bi-weekly/weekly IPD Team
(Cluster Group Coordination) Meetings
• Target Value Design
• Last Planner System
• Daily Cluster Group Meetings
• Detailer Meetings
• Specialized as needed
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:175 [The primary vehicle used to fo..] (24:149-24:1448)
(Super)
Codes: [A3] [Decision Making System]
The primary vehicle used to formalize, document and evaluate project decisions is called an A3
report, named after the size of the piece of paper upon which it’s printed. The team borrowed this
tool from the car company, Toyota who uses it to evaluate complex decisions. The standard form
A3 facilitated consistent problem identification, analysis, assessment and solutions. A3’s could
be initiated by anyone on the team and cover a range of issues; the criteria for its use was
intentionally left undefined to give IPD Team members the ability to follow their own intuition
and take initiative. Once an individual formally initiated an A3, the form was submitted to the
Core Group for review and final decision.
The benefit of A3 reporting is that it documents the problem, records the involved parties, and
establishes the assumptions for consideration. This provided the Core Group with a holistic

174

understanding and created a consistent and effective format for them to evaluate the situation and
make a final decision. At the time of this report, over 300 A3’s had been generated and more
than 200 had reached resolution. So effective has the formal A3 process proven, Cluster Groups
began to use informal A3 processes to work through routine problems.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:125 [The results of the test inform..] (26:2095-26:2273)
(Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [A3]
The results of the test informed A3 decision making, provided feedback to software vendors, and
informed decisions on how the model would be divided into specific design areas
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:176 [The team also implemented the ..] (24:145124:1744) (Super)
Codes: [Choosing by Advantage] [Decision Making System]
The team also implemented the Choosing by Advantages (CBA) decision-making system. CBA
a rigorous methodology for evaluating complex decisions with multiple stakeholders by
identifying the relative advantages and importance of each option. The CBA method
complemented the Lean A3 tool.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:34 [These goals were clearly commu..] (17:333817:3398) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
These goals were clearly communicated to the integrated team.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:46 [Owner involvement is one of th..] (19:640-19:882)
(Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
Owner involvement is one of the key differences between IPD and design-build, see Goals. The
owner’s ongoing input was critical to inform the team of items most valuable to them as the team
went through the process of Target Value Design
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:85 [This is one of the key reasons..] (22:3287-22:3430)
(Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
This input was intended to help shape the design, especially informing system selection and
detail development, thus ensuring the design met the value targets established by the Core
Group. This is one of the key reasons owner involvement is critical, they provide ongoing
feedback to prioritize items of greatest value to them.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:180 [Other protocols and tools, suc..] (25:1321-25:1733)
(Super)
Codes: [Adequate Progress] [Visual management] [Aligned Project Goals]
Other protocols and tools, such as decision-making pyramids, were posted in multiple locations,
such as conference rooms, to keep team members aligned with the design and team performance
goals of the project. These visual reminders encouraged the team to embrace the Lean Culture,

175

facilitate the integrated philosophy, and continue to serve as “advocates of the client” when
making project decisions.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:33 [one of the most critical compo..] (17:2454-17:2586)
(Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
One of the most critical components of goal development and alignment on an integrated team is
having an actively involved owner.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:86 [Increased collaboration and co..] (22:3626-22:3742)
(Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Patterns]
Increased collaboration and coordination inherent to IPD resulted in an increased number and
frequency of meetings.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:115 [The office space included an a..] (25:628-25:853)
(Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Patterns]
The office space included an abundance of publicly shared information to help communicate
status, report on Last Planner System metrics, identify process issues, and remind individuals
they are part of an Integrated Team
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:119 [Tool s • SMART Boards • BIM • ..] (25:203225:2176) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Patterns]
Tool s
• SMART Boards
• BIM
• Face-to-face exchange – co-location
• Autodesk Buzzsaw
• Shared server (at co-located site)
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:120 [Meeting Frequency • Weekly Cor..] (25:230925:2575) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Information Sharing Patterns]
Meeting Frequency
• Weekly Core Group Meetings
• Bi-weekly/weekly IPD Team
(Cluster Group Coordination) Meetings
• Target Value Design
• Last Planner System
• Daily Cluster Group Meetings
• Detailer Meetings
• Specialized as needed

176

P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:165 [This process required the CM/G..] (22:295022:3285) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Patterns]
This process required the CM/GC and trade contractors assigned to each Cluster Group to
provide ongoing cost information and estimating. This input was intended to help shape the
design, especially informing system selection and detail development, thus ensuring the design
met the value targets established by the Core Group.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:183 [Frequent sharing of progress m..] (26:231826:2653) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Patterns]
Frequent sharing of progress models was encouraged. Progress models could be shared in their
draft form as long as the file content and degree of completion was articulated and a File Sharing
Checklist had been completed. Progress models could be posted for use by other IPD team
members without requiring tedious “clean up.”
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:100 [This structure makes project f..] (23:4031-23:4220)
(Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
This structure makes project finances transparent and ensures that all estimates are based on cost.
According to the team, there have been no hidden contingencies or hidden allowances.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:26 [This project was fiscally tran..] (16:3442-16:3607)
(Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
This project was fiscally transparent between contracting parties, see Transparency, and widely
displayed visual metrics of cost targets throughout the workplace,
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:124 [The VDC document allowed each ..] (26:142926:1683) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
The VDC document allowed each company to select the software and authoring tools with which
they were familiar, with the caveat that their choices were clearly communicated to all BIM
champions and were compatible with Autodesk Navisworks Manage.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:121 [On this project, they set a go..] (26:279-26:560)
(Super)
Codes: [BIM]
On this project, they set a goal to have the BIM fully describe 4D (time), enabling the IPD team
to simulate the construction process and virtually test construction alternatives to find an optimal
method. The team also used BIM for 5D quantity take-offs on a weekly basis.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:122 [A Cluster Group assembled to m..] (26:823-26:924)
(Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]

177

A Cluster Group assembled to manage BIM resources was comprised of a BIM champion from
each company.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:169 [The use of BIM coupled with co..] (23:134-23:507)
(Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Co-location]
The use of BIM coupled with co-location facilitated informal and formal Cluster Group
interactions and had significant positive impact on team relationships and design coordination
and implementation. BIM coordination happened in real time and provided an accurate picture of
each Cluster’s status and co-location allowed many issues to be resolved within minutes.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:182 [A custom Virtual Design and Co..] (25:305025:3285) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
A custom Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) document was developed that clearly
articulated the procedures and responsibilities for modeling, coordinating and sharing the BIM
model. BIM use was required of all IPD team members,
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:186 [Sequencing trades to avoid mod..] (26:337826:4105) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
Sequencing trades to avoid model clashes required frequent progress updates and communication
between IPD team members to ensure systems were populated in an orderly way. For example,
the team discovered the designed ceiling height in the cafeteria and the size of the mechanical
systems were in conflict. The issue was resolved, but the BIM team realized that a change in
their process would have been allowed earlier discovery of the problem. The initial BIM process
started with the first trade through a building area. The team revised the sequence to start with
ductwork and sloping systems, which are the largest systems and ones which typically reveal
conflicts with the architecture immediately
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:196 [The team cited a $400,000 savi..] (23:321923:3397) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Cost Growth] [BIM]
The team cited a $400,000 savings gained by eliminating continuous backing for handrails. The
BIM model accurately located each metal stud, so that backing was made redundant.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:187 [Detailing was executed in two ..] (26:4111-26:4741)
(Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
Detailing was executed in two phases. Phase 1 modeling was done at a macro scale that followed
a modeling sequence that mirrored construction installation. Phase 2 was done at a micro scale to
meet the final construction level of detail (LOD). LOD was defined in a matrix form, similar to
the AIA E202 document. The matrix identified the LOD of each building system or component
for Phase 1 and 2, the responsible party, and the software platform used. Following a common
LOD scale, most of the building systems were specified to reach 400, defined as 3D actual
objects modeled for use in fabrication and assembly

178

P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:196 [The team cited a $400,000 savi..] (23:321923:3397) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Cost Growth] [BIM]
The team cited a $400,000 savings gained by eliminating continuous backing for handrails. The
BIM model accurately located each metal stud, so that backing was made redundant.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:81 [The Last Planner process not o..] (22:1894-22:2077)
(Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System]
The Last Planner process not only helped individuals become more reliable, it also improved
their ability to identify and communicate what they need to achieve their commitments.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:161 [The Integrated Form of Agreeme..] (22:287-22:863)
(Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System]
The Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA) stipulates that the IPD Team use the Last Planner
System (a Lean Construction tool) for planning and scheduling of design coordination and
implementation. As part of the Last Planner System, the IFOA requires, at a minimum, the
development of “a milestone schedule, collaboratively created phase schedules, ‘make ready’
look ahead plans, weekly work plans, and a method for measuring, recording and improving
planning reliability.” The IFOA describes each one of these Last Planner System tools and
processes in detail.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:163 [Work within each Cluster Group..] (22:123222:2303) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System] [manage]
Work within each Cluster Group was facilitated using the Last Planner System. The Last Planner
system required each group to work backward from the milestone and phase schedules to
develop their weekly work plan. Work plans in conjunction with detailed weekly look-ahead
schedules identified activities required to meet schedule and any constraints in the way of those
activities. Activities were converted into commitments, which were assumed by individuals who
promised to fulfill them within a week or two week time period. By tracking commitments,
groups were held accountable by a reliability metric that was measured on a weekly basis. The
Last Planner process not only helped individuals become more reliable, it also improved their
ability to identify and communicate what they need to achieve their commitments. The goal on
the Cathedral Hill Project was to maintain 90% reliability in each Cluster Group, a significant
improvement from the 50% average estimated by the CM/GC’s project executive for a
traditional delivery process.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:164 [Each Cluster Group also follow..] (22:272422:2948) (Super)
Codes: [Target Value Design]
Each Cluster Group also followed a Target Value Design (TVD) process, which designates
value, cost, schedule, and constructability as basic components of the design criteria, see Early
Involvement for advantages of TVD.

179

P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:170 [These significant savings have..] (23:1726 23:2115)
(Super)
Codes: [Target Value Design]
These significant savings have been primarily attributed to the Target Value Design (TVD)
process. This process held all team members accountable for designing the most value within the
target cost. Cost information was collaboratively developed before the design was fixed,
allowing cost to influence design instead of applying value engineering to revise a completed
design.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:171 [By feeding information into an..] (23:2302-23:2609)
(Super)
Codes: [Target Value Design]
By feeding information into an iterative design process, design ideas can be tested against costs.
Besides controlling costs, the TVD provided an important benefit by placing control of design
and its cost with the architect; this ensured design ideas were not unreasonably diluted or
compromised.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:123 [Any changes to BIM software we..] (26:168426:1831) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [A3]
Any changes to BIM software were made following the A3 decision-making process (see
Implementation) and required consensus of the BIM Champions.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:175 [The primary vehicle used to fo..] (24:149-24:1448)
(Super)
Codes: [A3] [Decision Making System]
The primary vehicle used to formalize, document and evaluate project decisions is called an A3
report, named after the size of the piece of paper upon which it’s printed. The team borrowed this
tool from the car company, Toyota who uses it to evaluate complex decisions. The standard form
A3 facilitated consistent problem identification, analysis, assessment and solutions. A3’s could
be initiated by anyone on the team and cover a range of issues; the criteria for its use was
intentionally left undefined to give IPD Team members the ability to follow their own intuition
and take initiative. Once an individual formally initiated an A3, the form was submitted to the
Core Group for review and final decision. The benefit of A3 reporting is that it documents the
problem, records the involved parties, and establishes the assumptions for consideration. This
provided the Core Group with a holistic understanding and created a consistent and effective
format for them to evaluate the situation and make a final decision. At the time of this report,
over 300 A3’s had been generated and more than 200 had reached resolution. So effective has
the formal A3 process proven, Cluster Groups began to use informal A3 processes to work
through routine problems.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:125 [The results of the test inform..] (26:2095-26:2273)
(Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [A3]
The results of the test informed A3 decision making, provided feedback to software vendors, and
informed decisions on how the model would be divided into specific design areas

180

"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:184 [An important tool used in this..] (26:2900-26:3257)
(Super)
Codes: [A4]
An important tool used in this process is called an A4 report. The A4 is a standard one-page form
that allowed the BIM Cluster Group to identify and record the detailing issues, identify the root
cause of each issue in order to prevent future problems, prioritize issues to maintain streamlined
production, and ultimately plot a path of resolution.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:176 [The team also implemented the ..] (24:145124:1744) (Super)
Codes: [Choosing by Advantage] [Decision Making System]
The team also implemented the Choosing by Advantages (CBA) decision-making system. CBA
a rigorous methodology for evaluating complex decisions with multiple stakeholders by
identifying the relative advantages and importance of each option. The CBA method
complemented the Lean A3 tool.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:141 [Additional reminders were prin..] (17:351617:3710) (Super)
Codes: [Visual management]
Additional reminders were printed at large scale for posting in prominent locations around the
co-located office. The posters acted as a constant reminder of client expectation to the team.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:180 [Other protocols and tools, suc..] (25:1321-25:1733)
(Super)
Codes: [Adequate Progress] [Visual management] [Aligned Project Goals]
Other protocols and tools, such as decision-making pyramids, were posted in multiple locations,
such as conference rooms, to keep team members aligned with the design and team performance
goals of the project. These visual reminders encouraged the team to embrace the Lean Culture,
facilitate the integrated philosophy, and continue to serve as “advocates of the client” when
making project decisions.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:191 [Information and educational ma..] (25:903-25:1316)
(Super)
Codes: [Visual management]
Information and educational materials about Lean processes, learning resources, and Last
Planner metric reports by Cluster Group were posted along a main central corridor within the
office. Each Cluster Group was provided pin up space where images, diagrams, outstanding
design issues and Target Value Design status were posted to help inform other groups of their
status or coordination items needed.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:149 [After several years of working..] (19:3161-19:3860)
(Super)
Codes: [Monitor] [Visual management]
After several years of working together, the team’s culture did not need extensive oversight.
However members of the Core Group continued to engage the team to stay up to date of progress

181

and to observe team performance, making adjustments and improvements when needed. For
example, leaders noticed that visual metrics were prevalent around the office, but metrics and
formats were not standard between cluster groups. In preparation for construction, leadership
requested cluster group leaders coordinate one set of graphic conventions so that a viewer could
immediately comprehend the status of each team and the project as a whole, a rule referred to as
“30 seconds at 3 feet.”
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:7 [Shortly after SmithGroup commi..] (14:179214:1946) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of Involvement]
Shortly after SmithGroup committed, Sutter brought in the contractor HerreroBoldt, and
immediately thereafter, primary trade contractors were engaged.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:90 [Early Involvement CM/GC • Vali..] (23:529-23:657)
(Super)
Codes: [Early involvement] [Phase of Involvement]
Early Involvement
CM/GC
• Validation (Feasibility/Programming)
Trade Contractors
• Validation (Feasibility/Programming)
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:94 [Early involvement was essentia..] (23:212023:2300) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement] [Early Involvement Effectivensee]
Early involvement was essential to the Target Value Design process. For example, each Cluster
Group had an estimator who provided cost feedback to designers on an ongoing basis.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:160 [Team members observed that ear..] (21:415121:4379) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement] [Early involvement effectiveness]
Team members observed that early and continued involvement by consistent team members
reduced the number of handoff points, thereby maintaining project knowledge and reducing
disconnects between designers and contractors.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:172 [Complementary to the Cluster G..] (23:261223:2952) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement] [Early involvement effectiveness]
Complementary to the Cluster Group estimators, trades involved in early decisions brought detail
and accuracy to the design. Additionally, as trade partners became more familiar with the
project, they gained greater confidence in their ability to estimate costs, helping to eliminate
inflation of prices and costly contingencies.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:181 [Co-location, coupled with earl..] (25:1736-25:2008)
(Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Early involvement] [Early involvement effectiveness] [Trust]

182

Co-location, coupled with early involvement greatly supported the relationship-building mission
of IPD. These strategies allowed the team to become quickly acquainted with each other, build
familiarity and trust that supported open communication and transparency.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:197 [It’s important to note that wh..] (23:3551-23:3730)
(Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
It’s important to note that while early involvement contributed expertise, the structure of the risk
pool, see risk/reward, provided incentive for the IPD Team to reduce costs.
"
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:89 [Co-location] (22:266-22:276) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
Co-location
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:113 [At the time of this study, the..] (25:217-25:287)
(Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
At the time of this study, the team had been co-located for 3 years.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:114 [According to the Boldt project..] (25:523-25:625)
(Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
According to the Boldt project executive, “people keep taking partitions down. We don’t need
them.”
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:169 [The use of BIM coupled with co..] (23:134-23:507)
(Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Co-location]
The use of BIM coupled with co-location facilitated informal and formal Cluster Group
interactions and had significant positive impact on team relationships and design coordination
and implementation. BIM coordination happened in real time and provided an accurate picture of
each Cluster’s status and co-location allowed many issues to be resolved within minutes.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:181 [Co-location, coupled with earl..] (25:1736-25:2008)
(Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Early involvement] [Early involvement effectiveness] [Trust]
Co-location, coupled with early involvement greatly supported the relationship-building mission
of IPD. These strategies allowed the team to become quickly acquainted with each other, build
familiarity and trust that supported open communication and transparency.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:181 [Co-location, coupled with earl..] (25:173625:2008) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Early involvement] [Early involvement effectiveness] [Trust]
Co-location, coupled with early involvement greatly supported the relationship-building mission
of IPD. These strategies allowed the team to become quickly acquainted with each other, build
familiarity and trust that supported open communication and transparency.

183

P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:59 [The architect observed that Sm..] (20:605-20:1049)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [commitment]
The architect observed that SmithGroup has been trending away from the traditional design-bidbuild to alternative delivery models. They discovered that the IPD arrangement used in this
project is far superior to the other delivery models and they intend to identify appropriate clients
who agree to work this way in the future. They found that the team relationship formed through
the IPD process allows for a better design process.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:153 [Three primary trade partners w..] (20:284520:3121) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
Three primary trade partners who had established relationships with Boldt were brought onto the
project very early. Each had already incorporated Lean Construction practices into their
organizations and demonstrated willingness to pursue Integrated Project Delivery.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:62 [Given this shared history and ..] (20:1330-20:1458)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Given this shared history and mutual respect, Boldt was well aligned with CPMC and Sutter’s
values and goals for the project.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:103 [The contractual arrangement, m..] (24:186024:2004) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
The contractual arrangement, management tools, early involvement and co-location all
contributed to the creation of a learning environment.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:108 [At the time of this study, Bol..] (24:3362-24:3603)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
At the time of this study, Boldt’s project executive observed that after 3 years of co-location and
collaborative working, the cultural shift to collaboration, innovation, and integration had become
ingrained in the team’s work habits.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:177 [For example, the Cluster Group..] (24:200624:2605) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
For example, the Cluster Groups create highly collaborative interdisciplinary teams that might
include two plumbing trade detailers, one HVAC trade detailer, and a technical architect – all
sitting and working together. As the contractor described it, “that is unique because that would
never happen on a traditional project.” The architect observed that IPD allowed them design to a
much higher level of detail than in a traditional project. The process provided them greater
knowledge of construction assemblies and cost and thereby gave them more control of the design
outcomes.

184

P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:178 [In general, team members adapt..] (24:261024:3355) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
In general, team members adapted easily to the collaborative and integrated work style of IPD.
Even though the team included well over 100 people, the project executives could identify only a
handful of people who did not fit the culture and were removed from the team. IPD is difficult
for individuals who have worked a certain way for many years and feel strongly that certain roles
are sacred. For these people, it was difficult to change and relinquish some control. Given the
nature of the Cluster Groups, those individuals quickly became apparent and typically were
removed. While the learning curve varied, the vast majority of team members found IPD to be a
very different but very rewarding way of working together.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:59 [The architect observed that Sm..] (20:605-20:1049)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [commitment]
The architect observed that SmithGroup has been trending away from the traditional design-bidbuild to alternative delivery models. They discovered that the IPD arrangement used in this
project is far superior to the other delivery models and they intend to identify appropriate clients
who agree to work this way in the future. They found that the team relationship formed through
the IPD process allows for a better design process.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:54 [Members of the Core Group occa..] (19:276819:2890) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
Members of the Core Group occasionally dropped into Cluster Group meetings to observe the
process and offer suggestions.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:134 [To ensure the Virtual Design a..] (26:4747-26:4865)
(Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
To ensure the Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) process was followed, Sutter Health
regularly reviewed the team.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:149 [After several years of working..] (19:3161-19:3860)
(Super)
Codes: [Monitor][visual management]
After several years of working together, the team’s culture did not need extensive oversight.
However members of the Core Group continued to engage the team to stay up to date of progress
and to observe team performance, making adjustments and improvements when needed. For
example, leaders noticed that visual metrics were prevalent around the office, but metrics and
formats were not standard between cluster groups. In preparation for construction, leadership
requested cluster group leaders coordinate one set of graphic conventions so that a viewer could
immediately comprehend the status of each team and the project as a whole, a rule referred to as
“30 seconds at 3 feet.”

185

P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:101 [the criteria for its use was i..] (24:613-24:762)
(Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
The criteria for its use was intentionally left undefined to give IPD Team members the ability to
follow their own intuition and take initiative.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:32 [Meeting frequency requirements..] (17:218717:2420) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Meeting frequency
Requirements were clearly defined for the Core Group, the executive level leadership, as well as
their responsibilities in terms of developing work procedures for leading the Integrated Project
Delivery Team.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:78 [This project employed individu..] (21:4476-21:4766)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]
This project employed individuals at multiple leadership levels to manage the integrated team
performance through education of the team on information exchange and process management
tools, planning of design and production sequencing and supporting continuous improvement
ideas.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:148 [Leadership was further distrib..] (19:2173-19:2634)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Leadership was further distributed into a series of Cluster Groups, which are interdisciplinary
groups comprised of architects, engineers and trade partners. Cluster Groups were assigned to
specific design areas, for example, structural, exterior, interior, and medical equipment. Each
cluster was responsible for designing their assigned segment within the Target Value (see
Implementation and Early Involvement) using whatever resources required.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:159 [Documents are significantly mo..] (21:312321:3536) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Documents are significantly more coordinated on an IPD project than on traditional projects, and
it is expected that the architect’s involvement in the construction phase will be less demanding
than early phases. The architect also anticipates that their increased involvement in the
coordination activities will lead to additional efficiency, reduced waste in the field and a return to
the risk pool.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:162 [To implement the design, the I..] (22:868-22:1229)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]
To implement the design, the IPD team organized into interdisciplinary Cluster Groups. These
groups were separated by design area, for example exterior architecture, interior architecture,

186

structural, medical equipment, etc. Each group was responsible for coordinating their design area
both internally and between other Cluster Groups or design areas.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:168 [Lean tools such as Target Valu..] (22:4737-22:5141)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Lean tools such as Target Value Design were used in conjunction with the budget flexibility
provided by the IFOA agreement. Cluster Groups could make trade-offs between building
systems, i.e. spend an additional $1 million on electrical but save $5 million on mechanical. A
non-integrated contract would require contract renegotiation, reductions in scope, and other time
consuming obstacles.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:122 [A Cluster Group assembled to m..] (26:823-26:924)
(Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
A Cluster Group assembled to manage BIM resources was comprised of a BIM champion from
each company.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:163 [Work within each Cluster Group..] (22:123222:2303) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System] [manage]
Work within each Cluster Group was facilitated using the Last Planner System. The Last Planner
system required each group to work backward from the milestone and phase schedules to
develop their weekly work plan. Work plans in conjunction with detailed weekly look-ahead
schedules identified activities required to meet schedule and any constraints in the way of those
activities. Activities were converted into commitments, which were assumed by individuals who
promised to fulfill them within a week or two week time period. By tracking commitments,
groups were held accountable by a reliability metric that was measured on a weekly basis. The
Last Planner process not only helped individuals become more reliable, it also improved their
ability to identify and communicate what they need to achieve their commitments. The goal on
the Cathedral Hill Project was to maintain 90% reliability in each Cluster Group, a significant
improvement from the 50% average estimated by the CM/GC’s project executive for a
traditional delivery process.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:185 [Design and detailing in the BI..] (26:2656-26:3257)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Design and detailing in the BIM was guided by a Coordination Master Process. The goal of this
process was to create a detailing environment and workflow that ideally eliminated all
construction issues and conflicts before construction. An important tool used in this process is
called an A4 report. The A4 is a standard one-page form that allowed the BIM Cluster Group to
identify and record the detailing issues, identify the root cause of each issue in order to prevent
future problems, prioritize issues to maintain streamlined production, and ultimately plot a path
of resolution.

187

"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:110 [One of outcomes of the integra..] (24:405724:4324) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge]
One of outcomes of the integrated, collaborative culture was a team that was willing to question
almost anything. According to the project architect, “you don’t have to listen to the people who
say, ‘you know we’ve never been able to do that so let’s not do it.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:112 [‘” An example of benefit from ..] (24:432724:4971) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge]
An example of benefit from the interdisciplinary cluster group approach was a new design for
patient lifts. The owner decided late in the project that they would like to have a patient lift in
every room, however this was not feasible given the structural bracing, space and coordination
requirements of the standard system. A junior level project engineer from the contractor asked
why they couldn’t use the booms already required for the medical monitoring devices. The boom
manufacturer agreed it might work and this solution is currently under study, illustrating the
team’s willingness to explore ideas from any member.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:136 [This added two years to the de..] (14:209314:2619) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
This added two years to the design phase; the flexibility of IPD enabled the team to slow down
the pace of production without claims or added change orders to the owner.
Resources were shifted from anticipated 40-50 detailers to maintaining 16 detailers over a longer
period of time. The focused effort with fewer people actually resulted in a higher productivity
rate, likely due to the continuity of team members and intimacy of the team, and avoided the
inefficiencies of coordinating within a large team.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:193 [The team has tracked metrics a..] (15:132815:1475) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Cost Growth]
The team has tracked metrics and found that the owner has earned a 400% ROI on the costs
invested beyond typical design to bring trades on early
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:194 [Involving the contractor and t..] (23:978-23:1720)
(Super)
Codes: [Actual Cost Growth]
Involving the contractor and trade partners from the very beginning of the project was a
significant investment, but at the time this study was conducted, had yielded measurable savings.
According to the contractor’s project executive, the owner had already achieved a 200% return
on investment (ROI) for the additional cost of IPD pre-construction services. The return comes
from savings in project costs. The initial target cost developed by the team early in the project
was approximately 14% or $80 million below market average. At the time of this report, the
team estimates an additional $22 million dollars will be saved below the market average. The
team is continuing to track this ROI throughout the process.

188

P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:196 [The team cited a $400,000 savi..] (23:321923:3397) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Cost Growth] [BIM]
The team cited a $400,000 savings gained by eliminating continuous backing for handrails. The
BIM model accurately located each metal stud, so that backing was made redundant.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:8 [the flexibility of IPD enabled..] (14:2134-14:2265)
(Super)
Codes: [Change order]
The flexibility of IPD enabled the team to slow down the pace of production without claims or
added change orders to the owner.

Neutral
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:156 [They felt there was no special..] (20:4897-20:5073)
(Super)
Codes: [Training]
They felt there was no special experience or skill requirements unique to IPD since the process
provides excellent opportunities for mentorship and learning at all phases.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:65 [For consultants, previous expe..] (20:2094-20:2291)
(Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
For consultants, previous experience in IPD or pre-qualifying their ability to collaborate was
secondary to the continuity gained by building on previously established goals, values and ideas.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:12 [Market Position was not a moti..] (15:132-15:180)
(Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market Position was not a motivator for the owner
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:29 [The Sutter IFOA included well-..] (17:1244-17:1391)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
The Sutter IFOA included well-known collaborative commercial terms such as: shared
risk/reward, performance incentives, compensation incentives,
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:37 [As a positive incentive, this ..] (17:4046-17:4175)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
As a positive incentive, this pool would provide payments if the team achieved actual costs
below the estimated maximum price.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:41 [The shift to construction-phas..] (18:1396-18:1529)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]

189

Instead of putting 25% of preconstruction profits at risk, they shifted to a 100% construction
profits at risk model. These revisions did not change the risk profile or actual financial numbers
much for the CM/GC. The architect, however, is concerned that these changes will negatively
affect the target value design process. With the original model, the team was incentivized to
reduce costs below the estimated maximum price during the design phase.
The shift to construction-phase-only incentives may result in the team holding onto cost savings
ideas until construction starts. "
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:24 [This team had a shared risk/re..] (16:1794-16:1849)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
This team had a shared risk/reward pool on this project,
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:25 [This team had waivers on liabi..] (16:2346-16:2394)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
This team had waivers on liability, see Liability
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:190 [The strong relationship with t..] (21:1342-21:1893)
(Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
The strong relationship with the Lean Construction Institute (LCI), who is partnered with UC
Berkeley, was an asset for this project. The project benefited from regular visits by Glenn
Ballard of LCI, an expert in Lean Project Delivery, and graduate students who observed and
reported their observations of the project team. Students reported on different areas of their
practice, such as the Last Planner System, change order processes, and accounting practicing,
which helped the team evaluate and improve their own performance.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:21 [BIM was implemented to an adva..] (15:378915:3830) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
BIM was implemented to an advanced degree,
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:199 [Many of the tools implemented ..] (17:198417:2185) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System] [Target Value Design]
Many of the tools implemented on this project were based on Lean Construction practices, such
as reliable promising, pull-based design production, Target Value Design, and the Last Planner
System.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:199 [Many of the tools implemented ..] (17:198417:2185) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System] [Target Value Design]
Many of the tools implemented on this project were based on Lean Construction practices, such
as reliable promising, pull-based design production, Target Value Design, and the Last Planner
System.

190

P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:168 [Lean tools such as Target Valu..] (22:4737-22:5141)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Target Value Design]
Lean tools such as Target Value Design were used in conjunction with the budget flexibility
provided by the IFOA agreement. Cluster Groups could make trade-offs between building
systems, i.e. spend an additional $1 million on electrical but save $5 million on mechanical. A
non-integrated contract would require contract renegotiation, reductions in scope, and other time
consuming obstacles.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:166 [An A4 report embraced a simila..] (22:419722:4306) (Super)
Codes: [A4]
An A4 report embraced a similar strategy that assisted the BIM design and detailing coordination,
see BIM.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:188 [Based on the bell curves of ef..] (21:2401-21:2674)
(Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
Based on the bell curves of effort often cited for IPD projects, they expected most of their effort
to be expended during schematic design and design development before handing off much of the
work during construction documents to the contractor and trade partners.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:138 [IPD has significantly improved..] (15:273115:2813) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
IPD has significantly improved trust between trades and eliminated contingencies."
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:30 [The agreement included some so..] (17:153917:1804) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
The agreement included some soft language defining the relational and behavioral expectations,
for example Article 3.3 Trust states, “Parties shall work together in the spirit of cooperation,
collaboration, and mutual respect for the benefit of the Project.”
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:139 [Furthermore, 60.9% of individu..] (16:132-16:394)
(Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [Commitment]
Furthermore, 60.9% of individuals had previously worked with other team members. This past
experience was likely a factor in organizations’ willingness to embark on an integrated,
collaborative delivery model, still a very new model with several unknowns.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:154 [These pre- qualified firms wer..] (20:3369-20:3596)
(Super)
Codes: [Commitment]

191

These pre-qualified firms were required to respond to an RFP presenting typical budget and
profit margin information as well as their experience with or willingness to be a part of an
integrated project delivery process.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:67 [In contrast to the selection o..] (20:2608-20:2844)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Commitment]
In contrast to the selection of the design consultants, trade partners (or sub-contractors) were
subject to a thorough selection process specifically targeting their collaborative experience or
demonstrated ability to collaborate.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:69 [The most highly prized charact..] (20:3882-20:3956)
(Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
The most highly prized characteristic was the willingness to collaborate."
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:109 [In his experience, this has no..] (24:3808-24:4044)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
In his experience, this has not been the case on smaller projects where people go on and off the
project at shorter time increments; they require much more continued and sustained leadership
and guidance in the principles of IPD.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:67 [In contrast to the selection o..] (20:2608-20:2844)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Commitment]
In contrast to the selection of the design consultants, trade partners (or sub-contractors) were
subject to a thorough selection process specifically targeting their collaborative experience or
demonstrated ability to collaborate. "
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:155 [Because everyone on the team h..] (20:434420:4456) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge] [Monitor]
Because everyone on the team had the ability to influence the design, confidence to offer input
was crucial.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:49 [Team Structure • Core Group • ..] (19:216-19:264)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Team Structure
• Core Group
• Cluster Groups
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:50 [the Core Group provides primar..] (19:983-19:1025)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]

192

the Core Group provides primary leadership.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:51 [The Core Group was responsible..] (19:1299-19:1442)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The Core Group was responsible for project coordination, management and administration
consistent with principles of Lean Project Delivery.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:187 [Detailing was executed in two ..] (26:4111-26:4741)
(Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
Detailing was executed in two phases. Phase 1 modeling was done at a macro scale that followed
a modeling sequence that mirrored construction installation. Phase 2 was done at a micro scale to
meet the final construction level of detail (LOD). LOD was defined in a matrix form, similar to
the AIA E202 document. The matrix identified the LOD of each building system or component
for Phase 1 and 2, the responsible party, and the software platform used. Following a common
LOD scale, most of the building systems were specified to reach 400, defined as 3D actual
objects modeled for use in fabrication and assembly
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:147 [The team discovered a deficien..] (19:1740-19:2168)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage] [remove obstacles]
The team discovered a deficiency in owner involvement as they worked through the value added
list (a list of items identified as desirable by the owner but not previously budgeted). The team
realized they needed more input at the user group level, specifically clinical operations, to better
prioritize those items. The owner addressed this by bringing a representative from hospital
operations onto the project team.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:155 [Because everyone on the team h..] (20:434420:4456) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge] [Monitor]
Because everyone on the team had the ability to influence the design, confidence to offer input
was crucial.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:44 [Should any claim arise in conn..] (18:2663-18:2875)
(Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
Should any claim arise in connection with the agreement, the Parties, including all consultants
and sub-contractors, are required to follow the dispute resolution procedure defined in Article 41
of the IFOA.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:195 [information gained through the..] (23:303123:3218) (Super)
Codes: [Perceived Cost Performance] [perceived schedule performance]information gained
through the involvement of the trade partners brought a level of detail to the BIM model that the
team believes will reduce material waste and construction time.

193

"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:195 [information gained through the..] (23:303123:3218) (Super)
Codes: [Perceived Cost Performance] [Perceived Schedule Performance]information gained
through the involvement of the trade partners brought a level of detail to the BIM model that the
team believes will reduce material waste and construction time.

Negative
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf
For the architect, this project allowed them to enter the IPD arena.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:20 [Technical Complexity was not a..] (15:281715:2895) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
Technical Complexity was not a primary motivator for the owner to pursue IPD.
P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:144 [At the same time, the architec..] (18:1530-18:1825)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
At the same time, the architect believed that the risk/reward incentives were not the primary
motivator for team members to successfully collaborate and take ownership of the project. He
felt the financial incentives primarily function as “bait” for the firms at an executive or VP level.
"P 3: 01 Cathedral Hill Hospital.pdf - 3:143 [The architect, however, is con..] (18:1150-18:1528)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
The architect, however, is concerned that these changes will negatively affect the target value
design process. With the original model, the team was incentivized to reduce costs below the
estimated maximum price during the design phase. The shift to construction-phase-only
incentives may result in the team holding onto cost savings ideas until construction starts.

Not Given
There is no quotation under this category.

194

Project 2
General Information
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:113 [MERCY Master Plan Facility
Rem..] (1:157-1:194) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
MERCY Master Plan Facility Remodel
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:2 [Healthcare - Renovation] (2:2212:243) (Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Healthcare - Renovation
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:1 [Lorain, Ohio] (2:199-2:210) (Super)
Codes: [Location]
Lorain, Ohio
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:3 [Single Multi-party Contract – ..]
(2:257-2:295) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Single Multi-party Contract – AIA C-191
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:4 [February 2010] (2:458-2:470)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
February 2010
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:78 [January 2013] (2:490-2:501)
(Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
January 2013
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:5 [After receiving Board approval..]
(2:889-2:995) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
After receiving Board approval, Array proposed an Integrated Project Delivery approach for the
project.

Positive
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:50 [The Project Management team wa..]
(6:1698-6:1893) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [training]
The Project Management team was tasked with educating, training and managing the
Implementation team, ensuring that the entire team adhered to the principles of Integrated Project
Delivery.

195

"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:116 [Market Position was important ..]
(3:541-3:830) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market Position was important for all parties involved. Array works exclusively in healthcare
and recognized IPD was where their market was headed. They made the strategic decision to
gear up their multiple offices and worked to prepare their regional partners for the shift to IPD.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:118 [Reduced Risk was a long-term m..]
(3:2303-3:2436) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
Reduced Risk was a long-term motivation for the owner. As a healthcare system they wanted to
find a better way to manage projects.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:41 [From this list, a scorecard wa..]
(5:246-5:395) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
From this list, a scorecard was created to measure achievement. The architect’s profit and
contractor’s fee earned were tied to goal achievement.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:43 [The team agreed to the AIA C-1..]
(5:1621-5:1894) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
The team agreed to the AIA C-191 standard Incentive Compensation. This compensation is paid
if the actual costs are less than the target costs. As per contract, the owner would retain 50% of
the cost differential with the architect and contractor each receiving 25%.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:40 [According to the modified cont..]
(5:1128-5:1598) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
One of the modifications made to the AIA C-191 was the limitation of the Goal Achievement
Compensation, which are payments made to the team for achieving project goals developed
according to the Target Criteria Amendment process and are not contingent on the actual costs of
the project, even if they exceed the target cost. According to the modified contract, the architect
and contractor waived the rights to the Goal Achievement Compensation; however, revisions to
Article 4, Compensation, established a compensation structure similar to the Goal Achievement
Compensation, but puts the architect’s profit and contractor’s fee at risk. Payment is contingent
on points earned for each goal as defined by collaboratively developed metrics, tracked using the
project goals scorecard.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:99 [Some of the owner’s facility m..]
(10:2841-10:3006) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [remove obstacles]
Some of the owner’s facility managers had reservations going into IPD because it was new and
required some changes in roles, but they have now fully embraced IPD.

196

P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:151 [To ensure qualified team membe..]
(10:2475-10:2838) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
To ensure qualified team members were present at the table, they modified roles for existing
personnel and hired an IPD consultant to act as the Owner’s Representative. Changes also had to
be made to their in-house Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QAQC) processes, redefining
the intentions for QAQC to align with the new delivery phases of IPD.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:152 [In spring of 2010, after sever..]
(2:1208-2:1916) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate] [Remove Obstacles]
In spring of 2010, after several months of contract negotiations, the owner acknowledged that
their understanding of IPD, particularly with regard to the legal terms, was not aligned with the
architect and contractor. To facilitate resolving these differences, the owner brought in an IPD
consultant. The owner’s IPD consultant suggested using the recently released AIA C-191
Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery as the basis for agreement.
All parties felt the AIA document represented the majority of what they were trying to do with
their custom agreement; however the contract continued to be negotiated for an additional 8
months until November 2010.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:153 [After reviewing the agreement,..]
(3:4467-4:542) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
After reviewing the agreement, the owner realized their expertise did not grant them a high level
of comfort with the contract. In spring 2010 Mercy hired an independent consultant, an architect
with experience in AIA contract documents and familiar with Lean Construction. The IPD
consultant recommended using AIA C-191 Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated
Project Delivery in lieu of the custom agreement proposed by Array.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:154 [To supplement the scarcity of ..]
(7:3534-7:3829) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
To supplement the scarcity of IPD resources, the owner’s IPD consultant contacted other
companies experienced with healthcare and IPD. The contractor Boldt was willing to share
resources and advice based on their experience integrating Lean Construction with IPD in the
healthcare sector.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:84 [Communication and decision-mak..]
(9:2825-9:3227) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
Communication and decision-making also occurred outside the weekly meeting schedule. When
team members judged an issue arising in the field too urgent to wait for resolution at the weekly
Wednesday meeting, an ad-hoc conference call with the integrated team members would be
assembled. Simply having a conversation among the diverse array of team members often
resulted in a quick decision.

197

P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:105 [They also noted that project d..]
(11:1196-11:1370) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
They also noted that project decisions were made immediately, whereas in their previous
experience issues raised in project meetings typically took 2-3 days to resolve.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:121 [Goals were established with co..]
(4:4039-4:4507) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
Goals were established with collaborative input from the team. The owner’s IPD consultant
developed and led the process of defining goals. Special effort was dedicated to this process,
because lessons learned from other IPD teams warned that a lack of goal definition and
alignment at the beginning of a project caused serious problems later. Compared with the long
and difficult contract negotiation, consensus on goal definition was very easily reached.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:80 [Contract Section 2.4 Team Meet..]
(9:1170-9:1546) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Contract Section 2.4 Team Meetings, Communication and Recordkeeping empower team
members to share relevant project information directly with one another, eliminating contractual
hierarchy and pre-defined communication channels. This allows all team members, including
design consultants, sub-contractors, advisors and agents to communicate directly with one
another.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:102 [The furniture is laid out in a..]
(10:4126-10:4347) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
The team set up an easily accessible “hub” within the hospital. The team uses this space to
review and work with documents and to conduct user meetings. The furniture is laid out in a
doughnut configuration with pin-up space on three of the walls and a SMART Board, see
Information Sharing, on the fourth. Network connectivity is also provided for individual laptops.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:103 [Tool s • SMART Board • Confere..]
(11:178-11:269) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Tool s
• SMART Board
• Conference calls
• Emails
• Networked Project Management Site
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:104 [When the team compared the pro..]
(11:966-11:1194) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
When the team compared the project meetings for this project against their previous experience
with non-IPD projects, they found a much more diverse group of people attended and the
information shared was at a higher level.

198

P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:136 [In this case, one of the bigge..]
(8:2881-8:3738) (Super)
Codes:[Early involvement effectiveness] [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
In this case, one of the biggest benefits of having the sub-contractors on board during criteria
design was the information gained through their access to the facility. They were able to look
behind ceilings and walls, discovering conditions that normally would not have been known until
construction. Having that information early allowed the design team to make better design
decisions and develop strategic construction phasing solutions. Sub-contractors also provided
valuable feedback based on their expertise. For example, there was a condition where the
mechanical engineer recommended the removal of a section of the ceiling. Sub-contractors
pointed out that removal would require both an inspection and upgrade of the area to bring it up
to code. To avoid these additional costs and delays, an alternate solution was found.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:146 [Meeting Frequency • Daily Hudd..]
(11:647-11:963) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Meeting Frequency
• Daily Huddles (Implementation Team and Project Managers as needed)
• Weekly Last Planner Meetings (Project Management & Implementation Teams)
• Weekly Cost Review Meetings (Project Management & Implementation Teams)
• Monthly Project Executive Meetings
• Conference calls as needed
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:147 [From the facilities management..]
(11:1375-11:1968) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [manage]
From the facilities management standpoint, the IPD process has increased meeting frequency and
interdisciplinary communication. This has been incredibly valuable in terms of increasing the
construction team’s awareness of the special requirements of constructing within an actively
operational healthcare environment. The daily huddles (see Implementation) have been
instrumental in facilitating effective communication between the construction team, the facility
manager, and hospital staff in order to maintain uninterrupted and safe hospital operations during
construction.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:82 [The open book contract languag..]
(9:1891-9:2063) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
The open book contract language gives the owner the right to audit or review any information
relating to accounting records and business methods used to determine costs.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:133 [The Last Planner System also h..]
(8:404-8:735) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System] [monitor]
The Last Planner System also helps to monitor the effectiveness of the team. According to the
owner’s IPD consultant, a University of Pennsylvania study reported that a traditional project

199

delivery approach typically achieves 50% reliability of work completed and that last
measurement recorded for this IPD team was 80%.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:134 [For fieldwork, the team used a..]
(8:740-8:1347) (Super)
Codes: [Daily Huddle]
For fieldwork, the team used a Lean tool called “daily huddles.” Donley’s superintendant and
project foreman led these huddles. Participants included the trade workers, the owner’s facility
personnel, and sometimes hospital nurses and staff. These short 15-20 minute meetings, held
each morning, have been very effective in communicating the daily activities and ensuring the
team is aligned in their goals for the day. This has been especially valuable for daily logistics,
coordinating security and scheduling shutdowns, all critical to keep the hospital functioning
during construction.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:148 [The daily huddles (see Impleme..]
(11:1703-11:1969) (Super)
Codes: [Daily Huddle]
The daily huddles (see Implementation) have been instrumental in facilitating effective
communication between the construction team, the facility manager, and hospital staff in order to
maintain uninterrupted and safe hospital operations during construction.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:59 [The three major sub-contractor..]
(7:1883-7:1997) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of Involvement]
The three major sub-contractors were selected by Donley’s and brought on board at the start of
criteria design.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:69 [Early Involvement (early contr..]
(8:1388-8:1489) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of Involvement]
Early Involvement (early contribution of expertise)
CM/GC Criteria Design
Trades Criteria Design
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:70 [Unique compared to the team’s ..]
(8:1702-8:1888) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of Involvement]
Unique compared to the team’s previous design-build experience was that sub-contractors were
on board during criteria design, only a month after the prime contractor was brought on.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:71 [With early involvement of both..]
(8:1890-8:2160) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Early involvement effectiveness]
With early involvement of both the contractor and sub-contractors, everyone started when the
project was still in development; this allowed for creation of aligned goals, a sense of ownership,
and eliminated the knowledge disconnect during project handoff points.

200

P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:73 [Sub- contractors reported that..]
(8:2527-8:2876) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Trust] [Early involvement effectiveness]
Sub-contractors reported that they avoided getting wrapped up in their own isolated issues
because, by working closely with other team members early on in the process, they were able to
see how each discipline was inter-dependent. This built respect and helped motivate the team to
be more responsive and better support other disciplines.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:96 [The contractor observed that e..]
(10:1479-10:1605) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
The contractor observed that early involvement created the biggest change, eliminating silos
within the construction trades.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:136 [In this case, one of the bigge..]
(8:2881-8:3738) (Super)
Codes:[Early involvement effectiveness] [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
In this case, one of the biggest benefits of having the sub-contractors on board during criteria
design was the information gained through their access to the facility. They were able to look
behind ceilings and walls, discovering conditions that normally would not have been known until
construction. Having that information early allowed the design team to make better design
decisions and develop strategic construction phasing solutions. Sub-contractors also provided
valuable feedback based on their expertise. For example, there was a condition where the
mechanical engineer recommended the removal of a section of the ceiling. Sub-contractors
pointed out that removal would require both an inspection and upgrade of the area to bring it up
to code. To avoid these additional costs and delays, an alternate solution was found.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:137 [Another benefit of early invol..]
(8:3743-8:4242) (Super)
Codes:[Early involvement effectiveness]
Another benefit of early involvement was an increased accuracy in estimating. The subcontractors had to revise their typical estimating procedures because criteria design required
early estimation to be done without detailed information. But because sub-contractors were
involved in design decisions that influenced cost and provided them with more intimate
knowledge of the project as it evolved, they were able to arrive at more accurate estimates when
establishing the Target Cost.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:138 [Responsiveness, enabled by ear..]
(8:4245-8:4743) (Super)
Codes:[Early involvement effectiveness]
Responsiveness, enabled by early involvement, has proven to add significant value to the owner.
Early involvement may be particularly advantageous for renovation projects, where unknown
conditions are routinely discovered and benefit greatly from fast collaborative response by an
integrated team. As the owner’s consultant commented, “there have been bigger projects, but this

201

one is complex and we are dealing with unforeseen conditions everyday. It is good to have a
team approach.”
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:142 [The early involvement of key s..]
(10:2061-10:2300) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [Culture fit]
The early involvement of key subs has had a tremendous impact on the culture of the team – it
helped build trust and respect among team members, eliminated the knowledge transfer
disconnection and achieved buy-in from the entire team.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:73 [Sub- contractors reported that..]
(8:2527-8:2876) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Trust] [Early involvement effectiveness]
Sub-contractors reported that they avoided getting wrapped up in their own isolated issues
because, by working closely with other team members early on in the process, they were able to
see how each discipline was inter-dependent. This built respect and helped motivate the team to
be more responsive and better support other disciplines.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:140 [Working as part of a transpare..]
(10:3110-10:3480) (Super)
Codes: [Trust] [Culture Fit]
Working as part of a transparent team has created the opportunity for the facility managers to
provide input, greatly reducing their stress compared to previous renovation experiences, see
Implementation for more information on Daily Huddles. Transparency provides a higher level of
awareness and trust between the facility managers and the construction team.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:8 [During this negotiation period..]
(2:1917-2:2185) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
During this negotiation period, the entire integrated team, which included the owner, architect,
contractor, design consultants and first tier sub-contractors, was committed to the IPD process,
worked (and were compensated) as if there was a contract in place.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:29 [This time period was difficult..]
(4:905-4:1172) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
This time period was difficult but the entire integrated team, including the owner, architect,
contractor, design consultants, and first tier sub-contractors, remained committed to IPD
throughout the negotiations and continued work without a contract in place.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:71 [With early involvement of both..]
(8:1890-8:2160) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Early involvement effectiveness]
With early involvement of both the contractor and sub-contractors, everyone started when the
project was still in development; this allowed for creation of aligned goals, a sense of ownership,
and eliminated the knowledge disconnect during project handoff points.

202

P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:73 [Sub- contractors reported that..]
(8:2527-8:2876) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Trust] [Early involvement effectiveness]
Subcontractors reported that they avoided getting wrapped up in their own isolated issues because,
by working closely with other team members early on in the process, they were able to see how
each discipline was inter-dependent. This built respect and helped motivate the team to be more
responsive and better support other disciplines.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:89 [As the owner’s representative ..]
(9:4503-9:4730) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [culture fit]
As the owner’s representative said, “The team worked for months without a contract. The team
got paid without a contract. The commitment, collaboration and communication were the
outstanding pieces of this whole process.”
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:16 [The integrated nature of the t..]
(3:1906-3:2300) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
The integrated nature of the team and close coordination with the owner allowed all of the
activities occurring on the medical center campus, including activities internal and external to the
project, to be combined into the team’s construction schedule. This allowed the team to
accommodate all of the owner’s other initiatives, avoid conflicts, and better achieve the owner’s
goals
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:86 [Team members observed that alt..]
(9:3710-9:3927) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Team members observed that although some of their colleagues initially tried to stay within
familiar roles, after a few meetings all team members became accustomed to sharing information
and communicating openly.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:87 [Instead of just sending an RFI..]
(9:4056-9:4202) (Super)
Codes: [culture fit]
Instead of just sending an RFI telling the designers and engineers to fix it, sub-contractors used
their experience to help suggest solutions.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:119 [the team has recognized that t..]
(3:3062-3:3578) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
the team has recognized that the collaborative nature of the process coupled with early
involvement has been a significant advantage, especially for a hospital remodel. Design and
construction were happening concurrently for a significant portion of this project. With a 60+
year old medical center, there were many unforeseen conditions discovered during renovations

203

that allowed the field team to provide detailed input to the design team to make better design
decisions and avoid issues in the field.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:140 [Working as part of a transpare..]
(10:3110-10:3480) (Super)
Codes: [Trust] [Culture Fit]
Working as part of a transparent team has created the opportunity for the facility managers to
provide input, greatly reducing their stress compared to previous renovation experiences, see
Implementation for more information on Daily Huddles. Transparency provides a higher level of
awareness and trust between the facility managers and the construction team.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:142 [The early involvement of key s..]
(10:2061-10:2300) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [Culture fit]
The early involvement of key subs has had a tremendous impact on the culture of the team – it
helped build trust and respect among team members, eliminated the knowledge transfer
disconnection and achieved buy-in from the entire team.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:75 [Sub-contractors also provided ..]
(8:3337-8:3738) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
Sub-contractors also provided valuable feedback based on their expertise. For example, there
was a condition where the mechanical engineer recommended the removal of a section of the
ceiling. Sub-contractors pointed out that removal would require both an inspection and upgrade
of the area to bring it up to code. To avoid these additional costs and delays, an alternate solution
was found.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:133 [The Last Planner System also h..]
(8:404-8:735) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System] [monitor]
The Last Planner System also helps to monitor the effectiveness of the team. According to the
owner’s IPD consultant, a University of Pennsylvania study reported that a traditional project
delivery approach typically achieves 50% reliability of work completed and that last
measurement recorded for this IPD team was 80%.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:50 [The Project Management team wa..]
(6:1698-6:1893) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [training]
The Project Management team was tasked with educating, training and managing the
Implementation team, ensuring that the entire team adhered to the principles of Integrated Project
Delivery.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:83 [The meetings became more effec..]
(9:2391-9:2822) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]

204

The meetings became more effective by splitting the time into two halves. The first half of the
meeting includes the entire team and typically focuses on the Last Planner Schedule, discussion
of field issues, and communicating relevant information to the foreman. The second half of the
meeting is only for those who need to be there and is focused mostly on project costs, schedule
and design progress under review.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:157 [This is primarily due to the f..]
(3:2677-3:2987) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
There was not necessarily a clear understanding of this advantage going into IPD, but the team
has discovered that having an integrated and consistent team through the duration of the project
significantly reduces risk to the owner. This is primarily due to the fact that the entire integrated
team (owner, architect, consultants, GC, and subs) is responsible for addressing schedule,
constructability, and cost; one discipline can’t deflect issues to another. Positive or negative, the
integrated team has to solve problems together.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:124 [The owner’s IPD consultant cha..]
(6:2011-6:2440) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The owner’s IPD consultant characterized the underlying values of an integrated team as,
“everyone steps up when they need to step up; whether it is a foreman, project manager,
estimator, project engineer, or project architect.” Essentially, the Project Management team
needs to set up an environment that allows team members to take leadership as needed and create
a culture of distributed leadership and ownership.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:126 [The IPD consultant brought on ..]
(6:692-6:1060) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The IPD consultant brought on board by the owner was experienced with fast track projects,
Lean Construction techniques, and early involvement. The consultant became integral to the
project, coordinating with the owner’s legal team through the contract negotiation as well as
facilitating the IPD process and eventually serving as the Owner’s Representative.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:141 [Plus, the increase in communic..]
(10:3482-10:3713) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Plus, the increase in communication allows the design and construction team to plan work more
intelligently and coordinate work with the facility managers, giving them more time to prepare
the hospital staff for interruptions.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:147 [From the facilities management..]
(11:1375-11:1968) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [manage]
From the facilities management standpoint, the IPD process has increased meeting frequency and
interdisciplinary communication. This has been incredibly valuable in terms of increasing the
construction team’s awareness of the special requirements of constructing within an actively

205

operational healthcare environment. The daily huddles (see Implementation) have been
instrumental in facilitating effective communication between the construction team, the facility
manager, and hospital staff in order to maintain uninterrupted and safe hospital operations during
construction.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:27 [All parties agreed the AIA doc..]
(4:543-4:700) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
All parties agreed the AIA document aligned well with what they were trying to develop in their
custom document, so the owner opted to use the AIA C-191.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:28 [After the AIA C-191 was chosen..]
(4:705-4:904) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
After the AIA C-191 was chosen, it took the owner, architect and contractor almost 8 months to
negotiate and revise the document to develop an agreement with which all parties were
comfortable.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:152 [In spring of 2010, after sever..]
(2:1208-2:1916) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate] [Remove Obstacles]
In spring of 2010, after several months of contract negotiations, the owner acknowledged that
their understanding of IPD, particularly with regard to the legal terms, was not aligned with the
architect and contractor. To facilitate resolving these differences, the owner brought in an IPD
consultant. The owner’s IPD consultant suggested using the recently released AIA C-191
Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery as the basis for agreement.
All parties felt the AIA document represented the majority of what they were trying to do with
their custom agreement; however the contract continued to be negotiated for an additional 8
months until November 2010.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:9 [They get long-term reliability..]
(2:2376-2:2630) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
They get long-term reliability. Maintenance issues are addressed during construction that
normally aren’t, so they get a building that is more economical to maintain and get the features
that they truly need based on what their budget could afford.”
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:10 [I think in the end, the owner ..]
(2:2312-2:2405) (Super)
Codes: [Participants Satisfaction]
I think in the end, the owner gets the most for their money. They get long-term reliability

Neutral
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:112 [The architect, engineers, and ..]
(8:1492-8:1699) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Architect] [General Contractor]

206

The architect, engineers, and contractor were very experienced with the design-build delivery
approach, which typically involves the contractor much earlier than in a traditional design-bidbuild model.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf
Code: [Team member IPD experience] [Architect]
Array was inexperienced with IPD but had been researchingthe method for some time."
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:112 [The architect, engineers, and ..]
(8:1492-8:1699) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Architect] [General Contractor]
The architect, engineers, and contractor were very experienced with the design-build delivery
approach, which typically involves the contractor much earlier than in a traditional design-bidbuild model.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:53 [Donley’s and Array had previou..]
(6:3817-6:4010) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
Donley’s and
Array had previous shared project experience, including a $30 million parking garage for a
University hospital that was ongoing during the selection process for this project.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:14 [Cost Predictability was not id..]
(3:1164-3:1331) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]
Cost Predictability was not identified as an initial motivator for selecting IPD, but the team has
already recognized the cost management advantages of the process.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:15 [Schedule Predictability was no..]
(3:1527-3:1743) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Culture Fit]
Schedule Predictability was not identified as an initial motivator for selecting IPD, but the team
discovered the scheduling advantages of having all the team members (owner, architect,
contractor) coordinating
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:23 [the team has discovered that h..]
(3:2526-3:2676) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_risk]
the team has discovered that having an integrated and consistent team through the duration of the
project significantly reduces risk to the owner.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:19 [Design Complexity was not an i..]
(3:2990-3:3233) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical] [Early involvement Effectiveness]
Design Complexity was not an initial motivator for selecting IPD, but the team has recognized
that the collaborative nature of the process coupled with early involvement has been a significant
advantage, especially for a hospital remodel.

207

"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:42 [According to the modified cont..]
(5:1128-5:1386) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
According to the modified contract, the architect and contractor waived the rights to the Goal
Achievement Compensation; however, revisions to Article 4, Compensation, established a
compensation structure similar to the Goal Achievement Compensation,
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:92 [The team refers to the resulti..]
(10:157-10:241) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
The team refers to the resulting culture as, “everybody has some skin in the game.”
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:44 [in this case the document was ..]
(5:2286-5:2757) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
in this case the document was modified to waive claims only between the architect and
contractor and their respective consultants and sub-contractors. The owner declined to waive
claims or liability. The waivers are general, but also include specific waivers of claims for
consequential damages and subrogation. Other exceptions generally included issues arising out
of “willful misconduct,” unfulfilled warranty obligations, or failure to procure insurance.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:123 [Two contingencies were establi..]
(4:2492-4:3027) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
Two contingencies were established as part of the Target Cost breakdown, a Design and
Construction Contingency and an Owner Contingency. The Design and Construction
Contingency would cover “reasonable refinement” of design details within the original scope of
the contract documents, and changes required by code officials. The Owner Contingency would
cover owner scope changes, extraordinary events or circumstances, and unforeseen construction
conditions that could not have been reasonably determined prior to work.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:129 [The team had a difficult time ..]
(7:3014-7:3405) (Super)
Codes: [remove obstacles]
The team had a difficult time finding resources to help them prepare documents and management
strategies for the IPD process. Without references, they had to invent new ways of doing things.
For example Array put a great deal of effort into strategizing the RFQ process for selecting the
engineer consultant, which was different than their previous practices (see Firm Selection).
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:56 [The architect drove the select..]
(6:3113-6:3207) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
The architect drove the selection of the contractor without much participation by the owner.

208

P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:57 [Mercy Health Partners and Donl..]
(7:513-7:833) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
Mercy Health Partners and Donley’s also did independent reviews and gave their top two
recommendations to Array. Array maintained final decision-making power since they were the
party contracting directly the selected firm. The owner and contractor agreed with Array’s
selection of the engineering firm Osborn.
"
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:139 [Early involvement, aligned goa..]
(9:4362-9:4501) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [Early involvement effectiveness] [Financial Transparency]
Early involvement, aligned goals, and transparency were the primary contributing factors in
creating an effective collaborative culture.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:85 [a SMART Board, was installed i..]
(9:3257-9:3604) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Other tools]
a
SMART Board, was installed in a conference room within the hospital but at the time of this
study has not yet been put into action. The Implementation Team believes the SMART Board
will facilitate remote communication by allowing review and mark-up of photos or drawings that
can be shared immediately with the off-site team members.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:145 [A SMART Board is a large-scale..]
(11:426-11:642) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
A SMART Board is a large-scale interactive tool that allows people in distant locations to look
and manipulate the same document in real time. There is one located in the “hub,” a conference
room at the hospital
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:81 [Contract Section 4.6 Recordkee..]
(9:1549-9:1717) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
Contract Section 4.6 Recordkeeping and Owner Audit Rights requires that all parties maintain
detailed accounting records of all finances related to the cost of work.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:139 [Early involvement, aligned goa..]
(9:4362-9:4501) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [Early involvement effectiveness] [Financial Transparency]
Early involvement, aligned goals, and transparency were the primary contributing factors in
creating an effective collaborative culture.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:107 [AIA E202 BIM Protocol Exhibit ..]
(11:2100-11:2154) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
AIA E202 BIM Protocol Exhibit was used in this project.

209

P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:149 [For each project phase, the E2..]
(11:2507-11:3176) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
For each project phase, the E202 requires the team to assign a five-level progressive scale to
determine the Level of Development (LOD) of model elements. The scale moves from LOD 100,
which is general massing, up to LOD 500, which requires accurately modeled construction
assemblies. The team hoped to achieve LOD 400, which would include fabrication, assembly
and detailing information. However, due to the lack of accurate as-builts of the existing facility
the team realized the maximum they could achieve would be LOD 300. Therefore, LOD 300 was
the highest level they specified in the E202 to be achieved by the Implementation Documents
phase.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:65 [The Last Planner System also h..]
(8:404-8:484) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor] [Last planner system]
The Last Planner System also helps to monitor the effectiveness of the team.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:130 [Because of conversations with ..]
(7:3831-7:4039) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System]
Because of conversations with Boldt and others, this project has incorporated Lean Construction
techniques, such as the Last Planner System, in the belief that Lean helps to facilitate the IPD
process.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:85 [a SMART Board, was installed i..]
(9:3257-9:3604) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Other tools]
a SMART Board, was installed in a conference room within the hospital but at the time of this
study has not yet been put into action. The Implementation Team believes the SMART Board
will facilitate remote communication by allowing review and mark-up of photos or drawings that
can be shared immediately with the off-site team members.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:19 [Design Complexity was not an i..]
(3:2990-3:3233) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical] [Early involvement Effectiveness]
Design Complexity was not an initial motivator for selecting IPD, but the team has recognized
that the collaborative nature of the process coupled with early involvement has been a significant
advantage, especially for a hospital remodel.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:90 [The team agreed that early inv..]
(9:4733-9:4876) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
The team agreed that early involvement was one of the most important IPD strategies for
achieving collaborative attitudes across the board.

210

P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:139 [Early involvement, aligned goa..]
(9:4362-9:4501) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [Early involvement effectiveness] [Financial Transparency]
Early involvement, aligned goals, and transparency were the primary contributing factors in
creating an effective collaborative culture.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:135 [Early involvement helped build..]
(8:2166-8:2283) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
Early involvement helped build trusting and respectful relationships between the designers,
engineers and builders.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:99 [Some of the owner’s facility m..]
(10:2841-10:3006) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [remove obstacles]
Some of the owner’s facility managers had reservations going into IPD because it was new and
required some changes in roles, but they have now fully embraced IPD.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:15 [Schedule Predictability was no..]
(3:1527-3:1743) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Culture Fit]
Schedule Predictability was not identified as an initial motivator for selecting IPD, but the team
discovered the scheduling advantages of having all the team members (owner, architect,
contractor) coordinating
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:54 [Shortlisted firms were intervi..]
(6:3567-6:3764) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Shortlisted firms were interviewed in detail on topics such as: relational aspects of project
delivery, budgeting process, and logistical strategies specific to healthcare and IPD environments.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:58 [Qualified sub-contractors were..]
(7:1592-7:1791) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Qualified sub-contractors were sent a qualifications survey that asked about experience with IPD,
experience with other technologies that would be used on the project, and financial background.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:89 [As the owner’s representative ..]
(9:4503-9:4730) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [culture fit]
As the owner’s representative said, “The team worked for months without a contract. The team
got paid without a contract. The commitment, collaboration and communication were the
outstanding pieces of this whole process.”As the owner’s representative said, “The team worked
for months without a contract. The team got paid without a contract. The commitment,
collaboration and communication were the outstanding pieces of this whole process.”

211

P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:93 [Comments from several team mem..]
(10:247-10:415) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Comments from several team members emphasize that successful implementation of IPD
requires flexibility, adaptability to new roles, and evolution as an organization.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:95 [Another challenge for team mem..]
(10:981-10:1334) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Another challenge for team members new to IPD was abandoning the “cover your ass(ets)” or
CYA mentality. For example in a traditional delivery method, if something comes up such as a
change order, all work stops until the order is signed or a construction directive is given, but in
this process the team reacts immediately and collaboratively.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:122 [There were also several modifi..]
(4:3262-4:3767) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Manage]
There were also several modifications that redefined responsibility for particular contract
requirements from “Parties” or “Team,” in the collective sense, to one party in particular, such as
the architect, contractor or owner. These modifications may seem to compromise the
collaborative intent of the contract by putting in place traditional, isolated decision-making;
however, interviews with the team indicate that these contractual definitions have not negatively
affected collaboration.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:127 [Design Consultants Array put t..]
(6:4143-7:346) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Design Consultants
Array put together an RFQ survey that they sent to a dozen engineering companies. The survey
questions related to the firm’s experience with and commitment to IPD, Revit/BIM experience,
general technological capabilities, and degree of integration in house (i.e. number of disciplines
under one roof).
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:128 [In general, team members were ..]
(7:2016-7:2245) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
In general, team members were selected based on their past ability to work collaboratively in a
team environment. Individuals who tended to push their point of view without considering others
were not selected for the team.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:65 [The Last Planner System also h..]
(8:404-8:484) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor] [Last planner system]
The Last Planner System also helps to monitor the effectiveness of the team.

212

"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:49 [Team leadership occurs at thre..]
(6:1065-6:1186) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Team leadership occurs at three levels: Project Executive Team, Project Management Team, and
the Implementation Team.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:122 [There were also several modifi..]
(4:3262-4:3767) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Manage]
There were also several modifications that redefined responsibility for particular contract
requirements from “Parties” or “Team,” in the collective sense, to one party in particular, such as
the architect, contractor or owner. These modifications may seem to compromise the
collaborative intent of the contract by putting in place traditional, isolated decision-making;
however, interviews with the team indicate that these contractual definitions have not negatively
affected collaboration.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:125 [Champion • Architect • Owner’s..]
(6:207-6:367) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Champion
• Architect
• Owner’s Representative (IPD Consultant)Team Structure
• Project Executive Team
• Project Management Team
• Implementation Team
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:30 [There were a number of changes..]
(4:1387-4:1525) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
There were a number of changes that had to be negotiated to reach consensus; most of these
changes were regarding the commercial terms.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:33 [And finally the ownership and ..]
(4:2050-4:2190) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
And finally the ownership and use of documents had to be negotiated to reach a compromise that
protected both the architect and the owner
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:45 [Any claims permitted under Art..]
(5:2781-5:2911) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
Any claims permitted under Article 8, Risk Sharing are required to follow procedures defined
under Article 9, Dispute Resolution.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:64 [Team members struggled through..]
(7:4042-7:4249) (Super)

213

Codes: [Commitment to IPD process]
Team members struggled through the early planning process, but felt the tools they invented and
lessons learned through conversations with others were good investments preparing for future
IPD projects.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:11 [“There have been bigger projec..]
(2:2688-2:2843) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
“There have been bigger projects, but this one is complex and we are dealing with unforeseen
conditions everyday. It is good to have a team approach.”
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:155 [According to the owner’s IPD c..]
(8:485-8:735) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Schedule Growth]
According to the owner’s IPD consultant, a University of Pennsylvania study reported that a
traditional project delivery approach typically achieves 50% reliability of work completed and
that last measurement recorded for this IPD team was 80%.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:115 [Even though from a cost standp..]
(3:180-3:538) (Super)
Codes: [Participants Satisfaction]
Even though from a cost standpoint $20 million is not a lot of money, we now realize we took on
one of the toughest projects for Integrated Project Delivery [due to the complexity of renovating
an older building]. The advantage is that we are learning the most about IPD and had to do it
well with this tough project.”
– Principal Architect, Array

Negative
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:31 [Limitations on liability were ..]
(4:1719-4:1860) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
Limitations on liability were agreed to between the A/E and contractor, but the owner did not
agree to waive liabilities, (see Liability)
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:32 [The insurance section was also..]
(4:1861-4:2048) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
The insurance section was also edited; the owner wanted to follow a more traditional bond
approach with conventional professional liability insurance for the architect and engineers.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:46 [In this case, the owner prefer..]
(5:4338-5:4644) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
In this case, the owner preferred to follow a conventional insurance and contractor bond
approach and struck the reference above from the agreement. The architect and contractor carry

214

standard Professional Liability insurance, specifics of which were attached in a detailed schedule
of requirements.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:150 [The team has spent a great num..]
(11:3181-11:4159) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Problem Addressed] [confidence in project management]
The team has spent a great number of hours modeling, but is not confident their efforts will pay
off in the end. Many team members concluded that BIM may not be appropriate for complex
renovation projects and Revit was the wrong tool for this project. They experienced difficulty
accurately inputting complex existing conditions and excess rework due to in situ site discoveries.
As the team struggled with BIM, they scaled back their expectations for the model’s use. The
model will be used for 100% of Detail Design and Implementation Documents as planned but
other functions have been dropped. In particular, the contractor’s use of the model for scheduling
(4D) has become less important and the goal of sharing the model with the entire project team
has been scaled back so that it is now only shared between the architect, Array, and engineers at
Osborn. The goal of using the model for sub-contractor fabrication, LOD 400, has been
abandoned.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:150 [The team has spent a great num..]
(11:3181-11:4159) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Problem Addressed] [confidence in project management]
The team has spent a great number of hours modeling, but is not confident their efforts will pay
off in the end. Many team members concluded that BIM may not be appropriate for complex
renovation projects and Revit was the wrong tool for this project. They experienced difficulty
accurately inputting complex existing conditions and excess rework due to in situ site discoveries.
As the team struggled with BIM, they scaled back their expectations for the model’s use. The
model will be used for 100% of Detail Design and Implementation Documents as planned but
other functions have been dropped. In particular, the contractor’s use of the model for scheduling
(4D) has become less important and the goal of sharing the model with the entire project team
has been scaled back so that it is now only shared between the architect, Array, and engineers at
Osborn. The goal of using the model for sub-contractor fabrication, LOD 400, has been
abandoned.
P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:144 [Not co-located - shared worksp..]
(10:3775-10:4347) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
Not co-located - shared workspace availableThe project team was not co-located. The option was
discussed but the team felt they could coordinate effectively through regular team meetings.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:156 [Infusing the IPD mindset throu..]
(10:429-10:724) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Infusing the IPD mindset throughout the organization was a challenge for the architect. For
example, many experienced architects were accustomed to using “defensive detailing because
you know in a traditional method, if it is not in the drawings and you go out for bid, you won’t
get it.” Changing this behavior took time and required a shift to the realization that everyone is

215

part of the same team. The architects also had to learn what level of detail was actually needed
to communicate information to the integrated team members.
"P 6: 02 MERCY Facility Master Plan Remodel.pdf - 6:150 [The team has spent a great num..]
(11:3181-11:4159) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Problem Addressed] [confidence in project management]
The team has spent a great number of hours modeling, but is not confident their efforts will pay
off in the end. Many team members concluded that BIM may not be appropriate for complex
renovation projects and Revit was the wrong tool for this project. They experienced difficulty
accurately inputting complex existing conditions and excess rework due to in situ site discoveries.
As the team struggled with BIM, they scaled back their expectations for the model’s use. The
model will be used for 100% of Detail Design and Implementation Documents as planned but
other functions have been dropped. In particular, the contractor’s use of the model for scheduling
(4D) has become less important and the goal of sharing the model with the entire project team
has been scaled back so that it is now only shared between the architect, Array, and engineers at
Osborn. The goal of using the model for sub-contractor fabrication, LOD 400, has been
abandoned.

Not Given
There is no quotation under this category.

216

Project 3
General Information
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:68 [Lawrence & Schiller Remodel] (1:184-1:214)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
Lawrence & Schiller Remodel
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:2 [Office – Renovation] (2:261-2:279) (Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Office – Renovation
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:9 [Because this is a delivery pro..] (2:23682:2558) (Super)
Codes: [Project Size]
Because this is a delivery process there is no scale limitation [to the size of project appropriate
for IPD].
– Interior Designer, Canfield Business Interiors/ Alliance Coordinator, ISG
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:69 [In spring 2010, Lawrence & Sch..] (2:5712:747) (Super)
Codes: [Project Size]
In spring 2010, Lawrence & Schiller, a marketing firm in Sioux Falls South Dakota, was seeking
interior design services for the remodeling of their 7,000 square foot office.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:1 [Sioux Falls, South Dakota] (2:226-2:251)
(Super)
Codes: [Location]
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:3 [Multiparty - Custom series of ..] (2:293-2:331)
(Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Multiparty - Custom series of contracts
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:17 [On this project, in lieu of us..] (3:1698-3:1989)
(Super)
Codes: [Contract]
On this project, in lieu of using a standard form agreement, the team developed proposals for
each phase of work, broken down into three phases: 1) Feasibility; 2) Design Development; and
3) Construction. The owner signed off on each phase separately as the price became more
defined.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:4 [August 2010] (2:532-2:542) (Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
August 2010

217

"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:5 [Unknown] (2:562-2:568) (Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
Unknown
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:6 [Canfield identified the projec..] (2:836-2:976)
(Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party] [Previous cooperation experience]
Canfield identified the project as an ideal opportunity to test out an integrated delivery approach
with several long-time collaborators.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:29 [Canfield Business Interiors pr..] (4:30304:3083) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
Canfield Business Interiors promoted the idea of IPD.

Positive
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:73 [The team considered education ..] (5:33135:3640) (Super)
Codes: [Training]
The team considered education to be critical to prepare for the IPD process. To define
expectations of the process and align motivations, all partners of Innovative Solutions Group
(ISG) were required to read “The Commercial Real Estate Revolution.” Key members of the
owner’s team were also given a copy of the book.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:74 [To help the team better unders..] (5:36465:3973) (Super)
Codes: [Training][Remove obstacles]
To help the team better understand the process and discuss the team’s comfort level with the
project’s shared risk/reward component, they held a round table discussion and brought in an
experienced IPD professional for advice. All team members attended this meeting (the owner
was invited but was not able to attend).
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:6 [Canfield identified the projec..] (2:836-2:976)
(Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party] [Previous cooperation experience]
Canfield identified the project as an ideal opportunity to test out an integrated delivery approach
with several long-time collaborators.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:8 [The Lawrence & Schiller remode..] (2:20532:2241) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [Team member IPD experience] [Owner]
[Architect][General Contractor]
The Lawrence & Schiller remodel was the first IPD project for all of the parties involved,
however they had all been working together for years following primarily design-build delivery

218

P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:32 [ISG parties had been working t..] (5:5165:688) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Previous cooperation experience]
ISG parties had been working together in a collaborative capacity for six years and had done
other projects as the entity ISG, primarily following a design-build method.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:33 [Lawrence & Schiller is the mar..] (5:8585:1007) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
Lawrence & Schiller is the marketing firm for Canfield, so they were familiar with the business
goals of ISG and sympathetic to their philosophy.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:36 [All the partner members had pr..] (5:16675:1760) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
All the partner members had previously established professional and personal relationships.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:65 [Everyone knew each other well ..] (7:12977:1418) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
Everyone knew each other well and were comfortable communicating as needed, often emailing
in the middle of the night.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:70 [ISG is a Limited Liability Cor..] (2:14262:2048) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
ISG is a Limited Liability Corporation. Typically in IPD, LLCs are formed to join together the
architect, contractor and owner for short durations, or one specific project. In this case the LLC
is not project specific but rather a new company, formed and solely owned by the owner of
Canfield Business Solutions, Larry Canfield. Lawrence & Schiller, the project owner, contracted
with ISG. The integrated team partners included: Canfield Business Interiors (interior designers),
RSArchitects, Mark Luke Construction, Electric Supply (electrical contractor), and Midwest
Mechanical (mechanical contractor).
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:10 [Market Position was the critic..] (2:25612:2703) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market Position was the critical driver for forming Innovative Solutions Group (ISG) and
proposing an Integrated Project Delivery approach.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:11 [Cost Predictability was a huge..] (3:1843:335) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]
Cost Predictability was a huge factor in deciding to try IPD primarily because they needed to
reduce the original design estimate of $700k to $500k.

219

"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:22 [The proposal broke out each pa..] (4:11334:1303) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
The proposal broke out each party’s allowable cost (their direct compensation, materials and
direct burden costs), and an incentive compensation cost (their profit).
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:16 [The team considered a standard..] (3:12593:1693) (Super)
Codes:[Remove Obstacles]
The team considered a standard form IPD contract, but for this scale of project and the clients
they work with, all of the currently available standard documents seemed overly complex.
According to the contractor, “the existing [AIA] contract is 120 pages long, put that in front of a
client and they are going to laugh at you and walk away.” The team agreed they are ideally
looking for an IPD contract less than 20 pages.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:44 [The contractor also developed ..] (5:39765:4228) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
The contractor also developed a cost analysis of IPD vs Design-Build based on their experience
over the past 8 years in conceptual estimating. This analysis was used to better understand the
potential value of IPD and communicate with the owner.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:74 [To help the team better unders..] (5:36465:3973) (Super)
Codes: [Training][Remove obstacles]
To help the team better understand the process and discuss the team’s comfort level with the
project’s shared risk/reward component, they held a round table discussion and brought in an
experienced IPD professional for advice. All team members attended this meeting (the owner
was invited but was not able to attend).
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:85 [Cost model estimates indicatin..] (6:654-6:994)
(Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
Cost model estimates indicating the integrated process would save 10% over design-build were
greeted with skepticism since many felt the design-build delivery was equally collaborative and
effective as IPD. But, as savings appeared attributable to earlier involvement of the subs, team
members became convinced of the value of IPD.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:77 [The team felt that collaborati..] (6:22526:2688) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
The team felt that collaborative decision-making coupled with early involvement of contractors
created the most valuable aspect of the IPD process: instilling buy-in from the team. As the
contractor said, “all parties own this project.” Most decisions were made during the weekly
design meeting. The owner was brought into these meetings on an as needed basis to ensure
design decisions aligned with the owner’s priorities.

220

"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:19 [This programming session inclu..] (3:35613:3717) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
This programming session included the GC and sub-contractors and helped ensure that everyone
on the team was aligned with the owner’s desired outcomes.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:83 [Tool s • Email • Face-to-face ..] (7:8047:1113) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Tools
• Email
• Face-to-face exchange – weekly meetings
• FTP site
The contractor, Mark Luke Construction, has an ftp site to share plans, but most of the
communication and coordination happened through email, phone or in the weekly design
meetings.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:83 (2) [Tool s • Email • Face-to-face ..] (7:8047:1113) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Meeting Frequency
• Weekly design meetings
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:53 [The proposal broke out each pa..] (4:11334:1338) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
The proposal broke out each party’s allowable cost (their direct compensation, materials and
direct burden costs), and an incentive compensation cost (their profit). The fee structure was
transparent;
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:46 [Early Involvement (early contr..] (6:4536:572) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
Early Involvement (early contribution of expertise)
CM/GC Feasibility/ Programming
Trades Feasibility/ Programming
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:49 [There are several benefits of ..] (6:9986:1243) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
There are several benefits of early sub-contractor involvement that translate to cost savings and
better value for the owner. First, bringing the subs in during programming meetings helped them
understand the goals of the owner and project.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:72 [At the time this study was con..] (4:16874:2268) (Super)

221

Codes:[Early involvement effectiveness]
At the time this study was conducted, the team attributed cost savings to the transparency gained
through early involvement of sub-contractors, who were able to better understand the project and
influence design and product/system selection decisions. This allowed cost estimates to be more
accurate and product/system selection to be more thoroughly considered in terms of design,
installation, and operation. The team expects this will reduce field coordination and construction
time that in the end eliminate “headache money” and provide the owner better value.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:81 [Second, during an early progra..] (6:14256:1818) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
Second, during an early programming meeting with the owner, the subs walked through the
space and identified potential issues that may have previously been overlooked without their
expertise. This made them able to participate in early design discussions where they asked
questions and made suggestions to the designers that led to cost savings in system selection and
coordination.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:87 [And third, because the subs, w..] (6:18206:1977) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [Perceived Schedule Performance]
And third, because the subs, who will be executing the construction, more fully understand the
project, they expect to reduce construction time by 20%.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:30 [The owner of Canfield, Larry C..] (4:30844:3334) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
The owner of Canfield, Larry Canfield, is involved with the collaborative project delivery
movement. He provided Rex Miller with input for his book “The Commercial Real Estate
Revolution,” which became an influential resource for the ISG team.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:31 [The Innovative Solutions Group..] (5:2215:512) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [culture fit]
The Innovative Solutions Group (ISG) Alliance Manager was responsible for facilitating the IPD
process, however all members agreed that it was truly a team effort with everyone fully engaged,
they speculated that this was perhaps because they were learning about the process together.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:35 [They selected partners who wer..] (5:14275:1665) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
They selected partners who were willing to read “The Real Estate Revolution,” embrace the
collaborative aspirations of ISG, and were passionate about moving their respective practices in
this collaborative and integrated direction.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:62 [Periodically team members had ..] (7:1867:516) (Super)

222

Codes: [Commitment]
Periodically team members had to remind their colleagues not to fall back into familiar roles. For
example, there were instances when team members had to be prevented from making decisions
in their individual silos apart from the team. Overall, the team was very successful at coming to
the table and making suggestions.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:80 [First, bringing the subs in du..] (6:11286:1423) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
First, bringing the subs in during programming meetings helped them understand the goals of the
owner and project. This deeper understanding helped them fully engage in the project and
motivated them to work hard on reducing costs while still achieving the aesthetic goals of the
project.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:31 [The Innovative Solutions Group..] (5:2215:512) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [culture fit]
The Innovative Solutions Group (ISG) Alliance Manager was responsible for facilitating the IPD
process, however all members agreed that it was truly a team effort with everyone fully engaged,
they speculated that this was perhaps because they were learning about the process together.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:32 [ISG parties had been working t..] (5:5165:688) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Previous cooperation experience]
ISG parties had been working together in a collaborative capacity for six years and had done
other projects as the entity ISG, primarily following a design-build method.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:37 [The architect was selected bec..] (5:17745:1863) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
The architect was selected because of an interest and philosophical alignment with IPD.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:82 [One of the most difficult cult..] (6:33966:3908) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Manage]
One of the most difficult cultural changes was to move away from a hierarchical structure to a
distributed structure where experts are utilized to lead the process as needed. There is no dictator,
which has been a shift for team members accustomed to having a project manager (PM) in
design-build delivery. Normally, the PM would identify conflicts, address complaints, and
dictate the course of action. In the integrated approach, the team talks to each other and
collectively identifies solutions.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:82 [One of the most difficult cult..] (6:33966:3908) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Manage]

223

One of the most difficult cultural changes was to move away from a hierarchical structure to a
distributed structure where experts are utilized to lead the process as needed. There is no dictator,
which has been a shift for team members accustomed to having a project manager (PM) in
design-build delivery. Normally, the PM would identify conflicts, address complaints, and
dictate the course of action. In the integrated approach, the team talks to each other and
collectively identifies solutions.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:84 [Formally, the team held a 2-ho..] (7:14247:2042) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Formally, the team held a 2-hour weekly design meeting for the Lawrence & Schiller remodel
project. Early on, meetings were formal with the Alliance Manager issuing an agenda and
meeting minutes, but this quickly developed into a more casual structure with quick emails to
notify the team of topics for which to be prepared. Given the relatively small size of the design
and construction community in Sioux Falls, team members often interacted three or four times
per week throughout the course of normal business, providing many opportunities to discuss
issues in-between the regular meeting time.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:25 [The team anticipates that the ..] (4:22734:2512) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment to IPD process]
The team anticipates that the completion of this project will give them a better understanding of
the cost savings and value of IPD, which will help ISG better define a risk-reward structure and
incentive criteria for future clients.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:86 [To clarify the cost benefits o..] (4:14224:1686) (Super)
Codes: [Perceived Cost Performance]
To clarify the cost benefits of this delivery method, the contractor put together a cost analysis
that estimated the owner would save 10% using IPD instead of design-build delivery. The
contractor planned to validate these estimates as the process unfolds.

Neutral
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:8 [The Lawrence & Schiller remode..] (2:20532:2241) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [Team member IPD experience] [Owner]
[Architect][General Contractor]
The Lawrence & Schiller remodel was the first IPD project for all of the parties involved,
however they had all been working together for years following primarily design-build delivery
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:8 [The Lawrence & Schiller remode..] (2:20532:2241) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [Team member IPD experience] [Owner]
[Architect][General Contractor]
The Lawrence & Schiller remodel was the first IPD project for all of the parties involved,
however they had all been working together for years following primarily design-build delivery

224

"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:8 [The Lawrence & Schiller remode..] (2:20532:2241) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [Team member IPD experience] [Owner]
[Architect][General Contractor]
The Lawrence & Schiller remodel was the first IPD project for all of the parties involved,
however they had all been working together for years following primarily design-build delivery
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:39 [Unique to the IPD process, the..] (5:22315:2405) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
Unique to the IPD process, the team selected sub-contractors based on expertise rather than
initial pricing. Selection also came down to past working experience and trust.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:18 [The team proposed a shared ris..] (3:26023:2782) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
The team proposed a shared risk and incentive structure, but this was not well defined in the
agreements that had been issued at the date of this case study (see Risk/Reward).
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:18 [The team proposed a shared ris..] (3:26023:2782) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
The team proposed a shared risk and incentive structure, but this was not well defined in the
agreements that had been issued at the date of this case study (see Risk/Reward).
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:21 [The owner had very little invo..] (4:8994:1048) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
ISG estimated their direct time and materials cost and put their profits at risk.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:54 [The team operated in a very tr..] (6:21676:2232) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
The team operated in a very transparent manner, see Risk/Reward.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:67 [The architect used BIM softwar..] (7:21277:2289) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
The architect used BIM software on this project, but primarily for executing work and visual
communication with the owner, not as a collaborative working tool.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:47 [The team found that early invo..] (6:5756:652) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
The team found that early involvement by key players created enormous value.

225

"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:34 [L&S was a seasoned client, fam..] (5:10085:1243) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
L&S was a seasoned client, familiar with the design-bid-build delivery. Some of their
experiences had been successful and others not, so they were very interested in testing this new
approach to better manage cost and schedule.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:38 [Mark Luke Construction was sel..] (5:20435:2220) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
Mark Luke Construction was selected due to their pre-existing relationship with Canfield
Business Interiors and strong interest in pursuing an integrated delivery philosophy.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:40 [The team agreed that selected ..] (5:28575:2990) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
The team agreed that selected individuals had to have the right attitude – one committed to
change and learning from the process.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:60 [The learning curve for the tea..] (6:28856:3042) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
The learning curve for the team was relatively conflict free, however cultural shifts were
required to break free of ingrained roles and responsibilities.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:78 [The process was more collabora..] (6:26916:2873) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [culture fit]
The process was more collaborative within the integrated team, but owner involvement was not
significantly different than design-build projects the team had worked on previously.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:27 [Dispute Resolution There was n..] (4:26584:2767) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
Dispute Resolution: There was no Alternate Dispute Resolution procedure identified in the
custom agreements.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:87 [And third, because the subs, w..] (6:18206:1977) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [Perceived Schedule Performance]
And third, because the subs, who will be executing the construction, more fully understand the
project, they expect to reduce construction time by 20%.

226

Negative
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:15 [Schedule Predictability was no..] (3:3393:395) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule Predictability was not a critical driver of IPD.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:13 [Risk was not a motivating fact..] (3:6893:752) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
Risk was not a motivating factor for the owner to agree to IPD.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:14 [Design complexity of the desig..] (3:7553:846) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
Design complexity of the design, a 7,000 sf interior remodel was not a driving motivator.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:26 [The contracts did not include ..] (4:25264:2655) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
The contracts did not include a “no sue” clause, however the Phase 3 contract had yet to be
developed at the time of this study.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:28 [No unique characteristics, sta..] (4:27814:2855) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
No unique characteristics, standard professional liability products used.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:88 [Implementation Tools No unique..] (3:31263:3220) (Super)
Codes: [Lean Construction Tools]
Implementation Tools No unique collaborative tools were referenced in the custom agreements.
P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:89 [Implementation There were no u..] (6:3056:412) (Super)
Codes: [Lean Construction Tools]
Implementation: There were no unique IPD tools used in this project to facilitate collaborative
behavior.
"P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:63 [Not co-located The team was no..] (7:5787:779) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
Not co-located
The team was not co-located. Meetings were primarily held in Canfield Business Interior’s
conference room, which could be reached within a 10 minutes drive for all the team members.

227

P 7: 03 Lawrence & Schiller Remodel.pdf - 7:78 [The process was more collabora..] (6:26916:2873) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [culture fit]
The process was more collaborative within the integrated team, but owner involvement was not
significantly different than design-build projects the team had worked on previously. "

Not Given
There is no quotation under this category.

228

Project 4
General Information
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:51 [SpawGlass Austin Regional Offi..]
(1:153-1:188) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
Spaw Glass Austin Regional Office
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:2 [Office – New Construction] (2:217-2:241)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Office – New Construction
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:53 [The office was planned to be n..] (2:5892:774) (Super)
Codes: [Project Size]
The office was planned to be new construction and approximately 15,000 sf. SpawGlass
Contractors acted as both the general contractor and owner, on behalf of SpawGlass Real Estate.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:1 [Austin, Texas] (2:195-2:207) (Super)
Codes: [Location]
Austin, Texas
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:3 [Single Multi-party Contract – ..] (2:2552:310) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Single Multi-party Contract – ConsensusDOCS 300
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:13 [SpawGlass chose to use the Con..]
(3:636-3:987) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
SpawGlass chose to use the ConsensusDOCS 300, Standard Form of Tri-party Agreement for
Collaborative Project Delivery. They considered the AIA multi-party contract, but found the
language in ConsensusDOCS more accessible. There was no negotiation or customization of the
contract, they went through the form and checked the appropriate boxes.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:4 [April 2010] (2:431-2:440) (Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
April 2010
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:5 [Unknown] (2:460-2:466) (Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
Unknown
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:6 [SpawGlass decided to use the p..]
(2:1328-2:1395) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]

229

SpawGlass decided to use the project as an opportunity to try IPD.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:30 [A local attorney specializing ..] (5:21625:2284) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
A local attorney specializing in IPD introduced the idea of IPD to SpawGlass and helped to spur
the initial IPD interest.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:57 [SpawGlass would like to reach ..]
(3:2795-3:2888) (Super)
Codes: [LEED Certification Intended]
SpawGlass would like to reach LEED Gold, but LEED Silver was stated as the contractual goal.

Positive
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:79 [The architect did have to inve..] (5:2495:535) (Super)
Codes: [Respond to complaints] [Training]
The architect did have to invest effort in educating their consultants on IPD. Because of a lack of
familiarity with the contract “there was some hesitancy on their part.” Ultimately, the architect
got them to agree, primarily based on their previously established relationships.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:28 [Austin is a small design and c..]
(5:1031-5:1344) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [culture fit]
Austin is a small design and construction community and all parties assumed collaborative
process would be followed regardless of delivery method. As described by the contractor’s PM,
“In the end it became more of a relationship thing than anything else; a comfort level with
someone we had worked with.”
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:54 [Market Position was the greate..]
(2:2213-2:2575) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market Position was the greatest motivator for SpawGlass to push for IPD. The contractor
desired to be on the cutting edge with the “best tools, equipment and innovation.” They saw there
weren’t many IPD projects being done in the market and decided they should explore the process
on their own office building because it was a low risk way to test IPD.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:19 [ConsensusDOC’s Article 11 defi..]
(4:166-4:371) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
ConsensusDOC’s Article 11 defined the Incentive and Risk Sharing structure for the project and
outlined the process for establishing the budget, cost models and a Project Target Cost Estimate
(PTCE).
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:19 [ConsensusDOC’s Article 11 defi..]
(4:166-4:371) (Super)

230

Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
ConsensusDOC’s Article 11 defined the Incentive and Risk Sharing structure for the project and
outlined the process for establishing the budget, cost models and a Project Target Cost Estimate
(PTCE).
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:22 [ConsensusDOCS Article 21, Inde..]
(4:2280-4:2696) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
ConsensusDOCS Article 21, Indemnity, Insurance, Waivers and Bonds, includes provisions
that limit liability, or indemnity, between contracting parties for claims that may arise in
connection to the project, but “only to the extent caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the
[owner, contractor, and designer] or anyone for whose acts or omissions [the owner, contractor,
or designer] may be liable.”
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:78 [When the idea of using IPD was..]
(5:1599-5:1930) (Super)
Codes: [Respond to complaints]
When the idea of using IPD was introduced, there was some reluctance from the architect’s
consultants, but eventually everyone accepted this approach. The team held an all-project team
member kick-off meeting where they discussed IPD and use of BIM. At that meeting all team
members committed to the goals of the project.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:79 [The architect did have to inve..] (5:2495:535) (Super)
Codes: [Respond to complaints] [Training]
The architect did have to invest effort in educating their consultants on IPD. Because of a lack of
familiarity with the contract “there was some hesitancy on their part.” Ultimately, the architect
got them to agree, primarily based on their previously established relationships.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:70 [Early and ongoing constructabi..]
(6:2348-6:2768) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
Early and ongoing constructability reviews between SpawGlass Contractors and BGK Architect
provided opportunities for team members to understand each other’s processes and hold
discussions more detailed than any they had previously experienced. As the contractor’s PM
stated, “it forces you to go over ever little nook and cranny of what you are looking at to a
certain degree and figure things out together.”
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:52 [“You never feel like there is ..] (2:18392:2210) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Exhibits no obstacles]
“You never feel like there is an issue or an adversarial side of this process. Monetary rewards
are fine, but at the end of the day, the biggest lesson learned is that we went through this process
together. [We can] share the story and take away some ideas on how to communicate, work
together and strengthen that [relationship].”Project Manager, SpawGlass

231

"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:43 [Some of the most valuable meet..]
(7:713-7:899) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [information sharing mechanism]
Some of the most valuable meetings were held around the computer screen of the project
architect, which allowed the team to review in real time and assist with team design decisions.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:47 [The CPD worked through the dev..]
(7:2879-7:3040) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
The CPD worked through the development of the BIM Execution Plan and collaboratively
established responsibilities, protocols, and deliverable requirements.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:49 [At the time this study was con..] (7:34767:3679) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [decision making]
At the time this study was conducted, the team had found the model to be most valuable for
project visualization. It improved team communication and ability to make design decisions
collaboratively.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:69 [The Management Team met once a..]
(6:1593-6:2336) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
The Management Team met once a week. The team consisted of two managers from SpawGlass,
a manager and a principal from BGK architects, and occasionally the Regional President from
SpawGlass who also makes decisions on behalf of the owner, SpawGlass Real Estate. During the
times when the owner’s rep was not available for the weekly meeting, the team reports that their
decision making process is slowed. Depending on the issues discussed, other consultants were
brought into the weekly meeting as needed. Because the owner and contractor were essentially
the same entity, most project decisions could be made between the contractor and architect.
SpawGlass had a Board of Directors responsible for approving final costs.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:18 [Some project goals were tied t..]
(3:3477-3:3618) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [incentives]
Some project goals were tied to financial incentives, intending to align the interests of the
contracting partners with the Owner’s goals.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:41 [Tool s • Email • Conference Ca..]
(7:174-7:267) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Tool s
• Email
• Conference Calls
• Networked Project Management Site (document sharing)

232

P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:42 [Meeting Frequency • Weekly Tea..]
(7:378-7:449) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Meeting Frequency
• Weekly Team Meeting
• Topic meetings as required
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:43 [Some of the most valuable meet..]
(7:713-7:899) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [information sharing mechanism]
Some of the most valuable meetings were held around the computer screen of the project
architect, which allowed the team to review in real time and assist with team design decisions.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:49 [At the time this study was con..] (7:34767:3679) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [decision making]
At the time this study was conducted, the team had found the model to be most valuable for
project visualization. It improved team communication and ability to make design decisions
collaboratively.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:75 [In the weekly meeting, the tea..] (7:4527:1327) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
In this project, similar to conventional projects, documentation of the meetings and distribution
of minutes and action items was the responsibility of the architect. The weekly meetings were the
most formal means of Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) team interaction. Other interactions
were informally documented and consisted of phone calls and email between all team members
including design consultants.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:35 [Contract section 8.2.8 Account..]
(6:1306-6:1573) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
Contract section 8.2.8 Accounting Records required the contractor and trade contractors to
maintain cost accounting for all work performed under unit cost, actual costs for labor and
materials. The agreement assured the Management Group access to the records.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:45 [SpawGlass Contractors was iden..]
(7:1632-7:2066) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
SpawGlass Contractors was identified as the BIM Information Manager, which made them
responsible for regulating access to the model anding together individual models into a Federated
Model. Each model provided to SpawGlass by consultants and trades wereed to the base model
but each maintained it’s own identity and integrity. Each party was therefore responsible for their
individual contributions’ to the Federated Model.

233

P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:46 [The CPD team used Revit. SpawG..]
(7:2071-7:2339) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
The CPD team used Revit. SpawGlass had been using Revit in exploratory ways in the 2 years
preceding this project; this was the first project that they fully incorporated BIM. BGK
Architects had used Revit on two projects before the SpawGlass Regional Office.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:33 [The owner/contractor and archi..]
(6:310-6:457) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
The owner/contractor and architect worked together from the beginning of the project, with
ongoing constructability and cost estimating reviews.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:15 [The agreement required that ea..]
(3:1901-3:2174) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
The agreement required that each party commit to mutual trust, good faith and fair judgment in
their relationships with the other contracting parties. Expectations were that each party
cooperates with each other to make decisions in the best interest of the project.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:28 [Austin is a small design and c..]
(5:1031-5:1344) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [culture fit]
Austin is a small design and construction community and all parties assumed collaborative
process would be followed regardless of delivery method. As described by the contractor’s PM,
“In the end it became more of a relationship thing than anything else; a comfort level with
someone we had worked with.”
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:52 [“You never feel like there is ..] (2:18392:2210) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Exhibits no obstacles]
“You never feel like there is an issue or an adversarial side of this process. Monetary rewards
are fine, but at the end of the day, the biggest lesson learned is that we went through this process
together. [We can] share the story and take away some ideas on how to communicate, work
together and strengthen that [relationship].”Project Manager, SpawGlass
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:72 [There was no real need for an ..] (4:35685:244) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
There was no real need for an IPD team facilitator or champion of the process as all parties felt
their collaborative relationships were already well established. As the contractor’s PM stated, “I
don’t know that there is one directperson that is heading the IPD concept; it is all of us just
working through it together.”
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:58 [The agreement required that th..] (4:3724:1233) (Super)

234

Codes: [Manage] [Monitor]
The agreement required that the owner first establish a Project Budget, based on the Design
Budget and Construction Budget as estimated by BGK Architects and SpawGlass Contractors
respectively. The team was then required to use “diligent efforts to design the Project so that it
may be constructed without exceeding the Construction Budget.” Achieving this required
ongoing Target Value Pricing and Cost Modeling by SpawGlass Contractors in collaboration
with BGK Architects. Cost models were to be reviewed on an ongoing basis and when the
models were not in conformance with the Project budgets, the Management Group was to
determine the Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) team’s course of action. The PTCE was to
be established “at such a time as the Management Group determines that the project design is
sufficiently complete.”
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:45 [SpawGlass Contractors was iden..]
(7:1632-7:2066) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
SpawGlass Contractors was identified as the BIM Information Manager, which made them
responsible for regulating access to the model anding together individual models into a Federated
Model. Each model provided to SpawGlass by consultants and trades wereed to the base model
but each maintained it’s own identity and integrity. Each party was therefore responsible for their
individual contributions’ to the Federated Model.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:58 [The agreement required that th..] (4:3724:1233) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Monitor]
The agreement required that the owner first establish a Project Budget, based on the Design
Budget and Construction Budget as estimated by BGK Architects and SpawGlass Contractors
respectively. The team was then required to use “diligent efforts to design the Project so that it
may be constructed without exceeding the Construction Budget.” Achieving this required
ongoing Target Value Pricing and Cost Modeling by SpawGlass Contractors in collaboration
with BGK Architects. Cost models were to be reviewed on an ongoing basis and when the
models were not in conformance with the Project budgets, the Management Group was to
determine the Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) team’s course of action. The PTCE was to
be established “at such a time as the Management Group determines that the project design is
sufficiently complete.”

Neutral
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:18 [Some project goals were tied t..]
(3:3477-3:3618) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [incentives]
Some project goals were tied to financial incentives, intending to align the interests of the
contracting partners with the Owner’s goals.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:64 [At that meeting all team membe..]
(5:1857-5:1929) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [commitment]
At that meeting all team members committed to the goals of the project.

235

"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:44 [This project used ConsensusDOC..]
(7:1457-7:1629) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
This project used ConsensusDOCS 301, Building Information Modeling (BIM) Addendum, to
allocate BIM responsibilities among the Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) team.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:77 [The team was not using the mod..]
(7:3681-7:4231) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
The team was not using the model for schedule, quantity take-offs or cost estimating at the time
of this study. The CPD team planned to use the model for clash detection.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:77 (2) [The team was not using the mod..]
(7:3681-7:4231) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
SpawGlass was also working to develop propriety building management software to assist in
building operation. They intend for this project to be a test case they can use to demonstrate this
software to future clients. The software will the BIM model to facility maintenance schedules,
energy management, and equipment information to assist in facility management.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:56 [Several process tools and stra..] (3:21993:2438) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System] [Target Value Design]
Several process tools and strategies are referenced in the contract such as Lean Project Delivery
Strategies (Last Planner System) and Target Value Design; however actual implementation of
these tools has yet to occur on this project.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:56 [Several process tools and stra..] (3:21993:2438) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System] [Target Value Design]
Several process tools and strategies are referenced in the contract such as Lean Project Delivery
Strategies (Last Planner System) and Target Value Design; however actual implementation of
these tools has yet to occur on this project.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:67 [Early Involvement (early contr..] (6:1916:307) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
Early Involvement (early contribution of expertise)
CM/GC Feasibility/Programming
Trades Construction Documents
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:27 [The firm selection process was..] (5:7375:1029) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]

236

The firm selection process was not motivated by IPD. SpawGlass had not decided to use IPD
when they issued the RFQ for the project. Although not motivated by IPD, the owner’s selection
of the architect was relationship-based, factoring their positive past working experience and trust.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:61 [In this case the person advoca..] (4:34224:3567) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
In this case the person advocating for IPD was the Regional President of SpawGlass Contractors,
who was periodically involved in the process.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:64 [At that meeting all team membe..]
(5:1857-5:1929) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [commitment]
At that meeting all team members committed to the goals of the project.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:71 [Though the degree of interacti..]
(6:2774-6:2936) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Though the degree of interaction was intense, team members agreed that traditional roles
remained unchanged compared to teams in conventional delivery methods.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:23 [Article 23, Dispute Resolution..]
(4:2719-4:2871) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
Article 23, Dispute Resolution of the contract defines the procedures for resolving disputes or
claims that may arise in connection with the project.

Negative
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:26 [The Collaborative Project Deli..] (5:5385:718) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Training]
The Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) team members did little to no preparatory research to
familiarize themselves with the process, see Early Planning for more information.
P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:65 [In general, the Collaborative ..] (5:24935:2832) (Super)
Codes: [Training]
In general, the Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) team did not do any preparatory research to
plan for differences in the IPD process as compared to more familiar methods such as designbuild or design-bid-build. As one team member stated, “we did not sit down and lay out a plan
based on the contract. We all just jumped in.”
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:9 [Cost Predictability was import..] (2:25782:2662) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]
Cost Predictability was important but not a major driver in the decision to try IPD

237

"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:10 [Schedule Predictability was no..]
(2:2666-2:2745) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule Predictability was not a critical driver for this team to pursue IPD.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:11 [Reduced Risk was not a primary..]
(3:153-3:190) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
Reduced Risk was not a primary driver.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:12 [Design Complexity of the desig..]
(3:357-3:485) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
Design Complexity of the design, a 15,000 sf single level office building, was not a driving
motivator in the selection of IPD.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:14 [No unique characteristics, sta..] (4:32084:3282) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
No unique characteristics, standard professional liability products used.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:21 [Although the contract outlined..]
(4:1239-4:1657) (Super)
Codes: [Remove obstacles]
Although the contract outlined a Project Target Cost Estimate, the CPD actually followed more
of a Guaranteed Maximum Prices (GMP) costing structure. An unforeseen site condition arose –
too much fill on the site required mass amounts of excavation. The team didn’t know how to
adjust the PTCE to account for this unforeseen condition and for the sake of expediency, reverted
to a more familiar cost model.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:80 [this team has not implemented ..]
(5:3439-5:3544) (Super)
Codes: [Lean Construction Tools]
this team has not implemented unique IPD tools in this project to facilitate collaborative behavior.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:68 [The MEP consultants and contra..]
(6:712-6:919) (Super)
Codes: Phase of Involvement]
The MEP consultants and contractors were not brought on until construction documentation
phase (CD), indicating that in this project their involvement was similar to projects using designbuild delivery
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:20 [The contract specified that th..] (4:17784:2237) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]

238

The contract specified that the contractor should get cost modeling input from the trade
contractors in the “Preliminary Cost Model,” “Schematic Design Cost Model” and the “Design
Development Cost Model,” however, the trades were not brought onto the CPD team until
Construction Documents. This is an indication that the CPD did not take full advantage of early
involvement of expertise when feedback could have provided the maximum cost savings.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:74 [The team was not co-located. T..]
(6:3016-6:3293) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
The team was not co-located. The team used the weekly meeting (see Decisions Making) for
face-to-face interaction. Shared BIM viewing was productive but limited by conventional
arrangement of individual computer screens and lack of co-location (see Information Sharing).
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:26 [The Collaborative Project Deli..] (5:5385:718) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Training]
The Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) team members did little to no preparatory research to
familiarize themselves with the process, see Early Planning for more information.
"P 8: 04 SpawGlass Austin Regional Office.pdf - 8:76 [They intend to use the model i..]
(7:3120-7:3472) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
They intend to use the model in construction for layout and the subs will use the model for
production and fabrication. However, according to the contract, the individual model authors are
not held to a certain level or accuracy and states that the “model can be used for reference only
and all dimensions must be retrieved from the drawings.”

Not Given
There is no quotation under this category.

239

Project 5
General Information
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:1 [Edith Green
Wendell Wyatt Fede..] (1:216-1:279) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:3 [Office Renovation] (2:283-2:301) (Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Office - Renovation
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:2 [Portland, Oregon]
(2:258-2:273) (Super)
Codes: [Location]
Portland, Oregon
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:4 [Multiple
independent contracts..] (2:315-2:378) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Multiple independent contracts – Custom (modified P-100)
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:28 [This project did
not use a mul..] (4:2277-4:2339) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
This project did not use a multi-party agreement, see Contract.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:5 [December 2009]
(2:506-2:518) (Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
December 2009
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:6 [May 2013]
(2:538-2:545) (Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
May 2013
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:135 [GSA
recognized they would not ..] (2:1458-2:1701) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
GSA recognized they would not be able follow their traditional P100 contract process. SERA
estimated it would take 27 months to use the P100, but a modified version using integrated
delivery processes could achieve the required time frame

Positive

240

"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:117 [Because of the
time committed ..] (13:929-13:1148) (Super)
Codes: [Training]
Because of the time committed to team education and relationship building, GSA’s leadership
methods rubbed off on the entire executive team and create a distributed network of champions
throughout the project team.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:27 [Participants
overwhelmingly in..] (4:1720-4:2194) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
Participants overwhelmingly indicated (100%) that their organizations had previous working
experience together. This also carried over to individuals, with 63.9% that had previously
worked with other team members, although over a third (36.1%) did not have previous
experience. This past experience may have been a factor in the organizations’ willingness to
embark on an integrated, collaborative delivery model, still a very new model with several
unknowns.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:8 [Market Position
was a primary ..] (2:2620-3:381) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market Position was a primary driver for GSA to implement IPD on this project. GSA Region 10
is using this project to measure the advantages of the process in order to transition their
organization to using IPD exclusively. Their goal is to themselves as long-term leaders of
innovation within the industry, helping to ensure that as the owner, they will have their pick of
the best teams in the market.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:11 [Cost
Predictability was an imp..] (3:1097-3:1176) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]
Cost Predictability was an important motivator in general for GSA to use IPD.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:15 [Schedule
Predictability was th..] (3:1908-3:1989) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule Predictability was the primary motivator to pursue IPD in this project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:16 [Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP)..] (3:2029-3:2264) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Strong motivators]
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) within an 8-month period. Achieving this required early
input of expertise, including the CM and trade contractors; this deadline would not have been
possible with a tradition GSA delivery approach.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:17 [The architect
felt that with t..] (3:2417-3:2612) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Strong motivators]

241

The architect felt that with the accelerated schedule, integrated practices were required to achieve
the schedule; the speed of work would not have been possible following business as usual.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:19 [Schedule
predictability remain..] (3:2763-3:2937) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule predictability remained important for the owner, meeting the schedule meant they
fulfilled funding requirements, and could accurately coordinate tenant moves.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:50 [One of the
primary drivers for..] (6:1177-6:1311) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
One of the primary drivers for using IPD was schedule in order to meet the March 2010 GMP
deadline to secure funds for the project.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:20 [Risk
Management was a primary ..] (3:2940-3:3297) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
Risk Management was a primary motivator in general for GSA to pursue IPD. As a large
government system with multiple facilities and building projects, implementing delivery
processes that can be applied across multiple projects to reduce their risk exposure in terms of
cost, schedule, and subcontractor claims is well worth the investment in IPD.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:21 [All team
members agreed there ..] (3:3320-3:3448) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
All team members agreed there are major benefits to managing risk on IPD due to the flexibility
and transparency of the team.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:16 [Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP)..] (3:2029-3:2264) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Strong motivators]
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) within an 8-month period. Achieving this required early
input of expertise, including the CM and trade contractors; this deadline would not have been
possible with a tradition GSA delivery approach.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:17 [The architect
felt that with t..] (3:2417-3:2612) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Strong motivators]
The architect felt that with the accelerated schedule, integrated practices were required to achieve
the schedule; the speed of work would not have been possible following business as usual.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:36 [The CMc’s
contract does howeve..] (5:1718-5:1952) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]

242

The CMc’s contract does however include financial incentives that would entitle them to a
percent of the difference between the Cost of Performance (final sum of cost of the work and fee)
and the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:59 [On follow-up
with the team, th..] (7:264-7:637) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
Initially, the incentive structure for the CMc included a 1%fee incentive that would be tied to
both a base team performancecriteria as well as a percentage of their value added.
Teamperformance would be evaluated based on the existing federalreporting criteria. Value
added is based on the amount of valueengineering the CMc identifies throughout the process up
toa certain cap amount; typically this would be 25% of all valuecreated up to a cap of one million
dollars.On follow-up with the team, they reported that the 1% incentive fee was rolled into the
CMc’s base fee and was not based on the team performance or value added contributions. This
was done in recognition of the fact that the CMc absorbed a $1.2 million liability for unforeseen
site conditions and other latent defects without any additional funding from the owner
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:33 [GSA issued
separate A/E and CM..] (5:844-5:1044) (Super)
Codes: [Remove obstacles]
GSA issued separate A/E and CMc contracts that were adapted from the standard P100
agreement to include some reference to the integrated or collaborative process under the Scope
of Work sections.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:76 [There were
alignment issues wi..] (8:4752-8:5127) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Remove Obstacles]
There were alignment issues with a primary design consultant; they did not understand the owner
expectations. The team leadership had to make a decision to keep investing in a weak link or to
let them go. The team decided to keep the consultant for the core and shell portion, but shifted
the tenant build out scope to the contractor using a design-build contract.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:79 [When team
members did not fit ..] (9:856-9:1405) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Remove Obstacles][Commitment]
When team members did not fit in with the culture, project leadership made the decision to
replace them. GSA characterizes integrated delivery as a dynamic process that is not about
solving one problem but rather a series of problems. “When issues arise, the problem may be
with scope of the project or could lie within the team composition itself.” The leadership was
very deliberate in assessing team members and at the time this study was conducted had replaced
the electrical designer, mechanical designer and landscape designer.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:86 [One of the
challenges for any ..] (10:571-10:1772) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]

243

One of the challenges for any IPD project is budgeting for additional involvement and effort upfront. The IPD process is far more dynamic than GSA’s typical projects. The conventional P100
contract lists tasks that the architect estimates hours and price for. GSA then has an impartial
reviewer estimate following the same process. The two estimates are compared and price
negotiated. IPD tasks and activities did not fit the P100 list and it was unclear how to budget.
GSA adjusted their budgeting process by converting the basis of the planning phases to time and
materials (T&M) instead of their typical fixed price. This increased the risk to the owner, but
since the technical requirements of the program were not completely understood, this was a more
equitable way to budget. GSA increased meeting frequency to mitigate the team’s performance
risk. T&M reduced the team member risk since all their time was compensated. This reduced
risk and the detailed Master Scheduling process allowed the team to develop very accurate
proposals for the fixed price agreements in the Design Development and Implementation phases,
ultimately reducing risk to the owner
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:119 [Constant
reminders were requir..] (13:1153-13:1379) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Remove obstacles]
Constant reminders were required to eliminate biases formed by past experiences in the design
and construction industry. To establish new team norms, the owner create a controlled tension
that kept team members off guard.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:137 [To comply
with the P100 requir..] (5:4180-5:4408) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
To comply with the P100 requirements, the integrated team developed a “P-100 2009 to CMc+ 6
Deliverable Crosswalk” that line-by-line translated the P100 deliverable requirements to CMc+6
Integrated Delivery Equivalent.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:138 [As noted in the
contract secti..] (9:3469-9:3764) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
As noted in the contract section, additional effort was required up front to adapt the P100 process
to align with this integrated/collaborative process. This required the team to review line-by-line
the contract and identify conflicts in the contract and changes that needed to be made.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:12 [This gives the
owner confidenc..] (3:1753-3:1904) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
Open books also allows the owneraccess to internal contractor conversations related to the
project. This gives the owner confidence in the numbers that are reported to him, and allows him
to weigh in on cost decisions that affect the project daily.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:89 [The MS was
created through a s..] (10:3702-10:3879) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]

244

The MS was created through a structured decision-making process that documented, sequenced
and prioritized all the work and team protocols required to execute the project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:112 [An example is
the successful r..] (12:4465-12:4937) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Problem addressed]
An example is the successful resolution of an error in the fire system identified by the electrical
contractors. Because the issue was brought to the owner immediately, a decision was made in 3
days as opposed to months of debate. Changes only had to be made to the first floor and
incorporated in progress work, whereas in a more traditional delivery method, the issue would
not have been identified until late and would have required rework to all floors.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:136 [Part of the
mMS process that h..] (11:533-11:1105) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
Part of the mMS process that helped foster a sense of ownership across the entire project team
was the assignment an individual team member to certain task items. These individuals were
identified as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) and were responsible for resolving their items
through whatever means necessary. This created a system for decision-making and responsibility
that led to distributed leadership. Creating multiple scales of project ownership ensured that
healthy debate could lead to decisions made in the best interest of the overall project.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:49 [GSA took a
leadership role in ..] (6:848-6:955) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
GSA took a leadership role in clearly articulating project goals and aligning team members with
the goals.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:105 [Once the team
was in place, GS..] (12:942-12:1079) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
Once the team was in place, GSA’s priority was to align the team’s goals, build relationships and
the team’s supporting infrastructure
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:68 [The executive
team has several..] (7:3769-8:589) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Information sharing mechanisms]
The executive team has several lengthy meetings every week; project managers broke out from
those sessions and distributed the message to the integrated team members. The implementation
process on this project relied on the Master Schedule (MS) and mini Master Schedule (mMS)
(see Implementation) to identify and communicate the priority tasks. The MS process was based
on an open source philosophy; everyone on the team had the ability to contribute to the mMS
subtask list and take ownership of an item, effectively distributing leadership among the
integrated team. These distributed leaders were referred to as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and
ensured the person most qualified to bring an item to resolution was empowered to do so.

245

P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:92 [From the Master
Schedule a ser..] (10:4841-10:4979) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
From the Master Schedule a series of mini Master Schedules (mMS) were developed that
detailed out how each task would be accomplished.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:93 [The MS and
mMS were so effecti..] (11:409-11:527) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
The MS and mMS were so effective in recording tasks and responsibilities traditional meeting
minutes were not needed.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:98 [Instead of
traditional drawing..] (11:1301-11:2637) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Instead of traditional drawing packages (50% SD, 100% SD, 50% DD, etc.), drawing packages
on this project were called Snap Shots. Snap Shots were taken at specific moments during design
when the team literally printed drawing sets from the BIM. One of the most unique aspects of
this project was the alignment of the Snap Shots with the CMc’s buyout strategy, made possible
by the back and forth coordination between the CMc and architect. According to the owner, it
was important that the entire team acknowledge the purpose of the technical documents was to
validate owner intent and provide the information necessary for the CMc to solicit subcontracts;
the documents did not need to be complete. This philosophy allowed the prioritization within the
design, delaying non-critical portions of design to later phases; this helped keep the aggressive
schedule on track. It also helped focus the entire team on 1 or 2 priorities at a time.
Subcontractors embracing this process were awarded design-build contracts so that trades who
would build it, designed it. Essentially, this allowed the architect to complete the design through
an “active listening process” engaging with the trades; efficient compared to designing without
input and later reworking the design after the trades were on board.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:99 [Another tool
implemented was a..] (11:2642-11:2902) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Another tool implemented was a project diary which helped record information and manage
communication. The diary was distributed weekly to the entire team, including all contract
parties and all job levels, and highlighted major decisions and progress.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:127 [Tool s • BIM •
Face to face ex..] (14:3187-14:3726) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Tool s
• BIM
• Face to face exchange – co-location
• Networked document management site
• SmartSheets (cloud based document sharing)
• Living Calendar

246

P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:127 (2) [Tool s •
BIM • Face to face ex..] (14:3187-14:3726) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Meeting Frequency
• Weekly Coordination Meeting
• Monthly Clash Detection and Energy Model Verification Meetings
• Monthly Project Executive Meeting
• Monthly BIM Review Meetings through Criteria Design
• Daily BIM Meetings from Detail Design into Construction
• Daily Information Coordination Meetings
• Specialty Meetings as needed
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:13 [Open books
also allows the own..] (3:1648-3:1749) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
Open books also allows the owner access to internal contractor conversations related to the
project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:108 [The CMc’s
contract specified “..] (12:2522-12:2678) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
The CMc’s contract specified “open book” access to any and all records maintained by the
contractor relating to the project, including all subcontracts.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:109 [GSA also
followed a “reverse o..] (12:2774-12:3085) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
GSA also followed a “reverse open books” strategy. GSA showed their budget and planned
allocation to the team. The openness of this communication set an example for the transparency
the owner expected from each team member and set a realistic view of where GSA expected the
resources to be distributed.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:26 [According to
interviews this p..] (4:593-4:739) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
According to interviews this project implemented BIM to a high degree and used the project to
create lessons learned for future implementation,
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:102 [BIM, coupled
with co-location,..] (11:3332-11:3473) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Co-location]
BIM, coupled with co-location, facilitated design and real time coordination that allowed issues
to be resolved within a matter of minutes

247

P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:130 [The model was
very effective a..] (15:1487-15:1926) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
The model was very effective at facilitating coordination between the many disciplines and
confirmation from those who will build it. For example, there was a complex change request
from the owner to change the ceiling height from 9’ to 9’-6”. The team was able to effectively
communicate with all the affected team members and made the change almost instantly. There
were major benefits to the owner just given the flexibility;
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:133 [First was
learning how to arti..] (15:2486-15:2579) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Problem Addressed]
First was learning how to articulate design/model requirements for the different disciplines. The
team found that they were being too literal with the requirements for each discipline and phase.
They found they couldn’t predict (or expect) that mechanical or electrical follow the same design
path as structural or plumbing, and in some cases this was forcing the architecture before the
contractor needed it for buyout. To address this and track each design path, the team used what
they called Snap Shots, literally taking pictures of design development status, using Revit to print
the 2D document set of exactly what they had at certain points in time Implementation. Each
Snap Shot was a deliverable package, which looked similar to traditional submissions, that got
more specific by discipline or building system as the project evolved to match what HSW needed
for procurement and buyout. This process would not have been possible without the intense
coordination made possible by co-location and early contributions by the trade contractors.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:71 (2) [In this case,
GSA committed to..] (8:1274-8:1987) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Confidence in project management]
Because of the commitment by the owner to support the project through its duration, the CMc
was more willing to partner with the architect and engineers to both prioritize work and let some
work shift later in the process because they were confident the integrated team would be there
“together feeling the day to day pains and rewards,” for the duration of the project
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:44 [First tier
subcontractors bein..] (6:532-6:622) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
First tier subcontractors being on the team before contract documents are developed
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:104 [The CMc,
Howard S Wright (HSW)..] (12:320-12:937) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness][Phase of involvement]
The CMc, Howard S Wright (HSW), was involved in early meetings and followed the progress
of the project prior to being contracted. Toward the end of criteria design, HSW, along with five
trades, were brought onto the team, which allowed them to participate in detail design and later
phases. GSA appreciated the value of involving the contractor early; eliminating the buy out
effect of bidding gave GSA better control over performance, cost and schedule risks. They

248

estimated that by bringing on the subcontractors early, over 60% of the owners cost exposure
was known before construction started.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:103 [According to
GSA’s officer, ”o..] (11:4203-11:4594) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
According to GSA’s officer, ”one of the real values of integrated delivery is the ability to get
each team member oriented and saturated before we start building. The more we can front load
the schedule and the more we can allow team members to influence the project when we are still
on paper, the greater impact we get as owners in terms of change control -- cost, budget etc.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:104 [The CMc,
Howard S Wright (HSW)..] (12:320-12:937) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness][Phase of involvement]
The CMc, Howard S Wright (HSW), was involved in early meetings and followed the progress
of the project prior to being contracted. Toward the end of criteria design, HSW, along with five
trades, were brought onto the team, which allowed them to participate in detail design and later
phases. GSA appreciated the value of involving the contractor early; eliminating the buy out
effect of bidding gave GSA better control over performance, cost and schedule risks. They
estimated that by bringing on the subcontractors early, over 60% of the owners cost exposure
was known before construction started.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:107 [There were
several innovations..] (12:1429-12:2503) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Early involvement effectiveness]
There were several innovations attributed to early involvement and the integrated make-up of the
team. One example was the idea to design a model unit for the 16 inbound tenant design work.
Because of the strong partnerships, the owner was open to this idea, which significantly
improved the team’s ability to meet the building’s energy performance goals. The model unit
established a base design concept that optimized the building’s energy profile and incorporated
cost and constructability input from the CMc. Armed with this information, the architects could
explain to the tenants the science behind the design and the cost implications of design changes
to the base design. In the end, all the models were modified to meet each tenants’ specific
program requirements, but in general they followed the basic layout concept because the tenants
had a clear understanding of the overall building goals, reasons behind the design, and
implications of change. It also eliminated the time consuming and costly cycle of designing and
redesigning
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:111 [Owner
involvement and early in..] (12:4231-12:4464) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness][Co-location]
Owner involvement and early involvement of expertise coupled with co-location (see Workplace)
and clear expectations (see Leadership) were key to quick decision-making and, according to the
owner, exponentially reduced latency.

249

P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:125 [As the
architects worked on th..] (14:1715-14:2047) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [Co-location]
As the architects worked on the design, co-location gave the contractor “early line of sight” to
what they were working on. Early communication, estimating and budget verification of the
architects’ “fat line drawings” kept the team on track, saved man hours in rework and ensured
the design was appropriate to the budget.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:80 [co-location
enabled them to le..] (9:2295-9:2694) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
co-location enabled them to learn from everyone around them and the integration required that
younger staff really engage with other disciplines and forced them to ask more questions. As a
result they gained experience more quickly than they would on a traditional project, they are in
higher demand for other projects within their firms than one might expect for their experience
level.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:101 [Co-location of
the team provid..] (11:3223-11:3331) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
Co-location of the team provided significant coordination benefit, enabling informal daily
interactions.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:102 [BIM, coupled
with co-location,..] (11:3332-11:3473) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Co-location]
BIM, coupled with co-location, facilitated design and real time coordination that allowed issues
to be resolved within a matter of minutes
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:111 [Owner
involvement and early in..] (12:4231-12:4464) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness][Co-location]
Owner involvement and early involvement of expertise coupled with co-location (see Workplace)
and clear expectations (see Leadership) were key to quick decision-making and, according to the
owner, exponentially reduced latency.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:121 [During design,
the integrated ..] (13:2159-13:2299) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
During design, the integrated team was co-located on the project site, in existing offices of the
federal building they were modernizing.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:122 [Results from
the first survey ..] (13:2617-13:3531) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Culture Fit]

250

Results from the first survey showed very positive evaluations of co-location in terms of
professional development, team spirit, and the use of BIM. The majority of the team felt
innovation and improvement was equivalent to non co-located experiences, though only 2% felt
it was worse while 17% felt co-location improved innovation. Productivity had the least
consensus, with 14% of team members ranking productivity in the co-located office worse than
non co-located experiences, 28% felt productivity was the same, and 18% felt it was better.
Consistently scoring low was the physical work environment itself. The survey process also
revealed that certain individuals consistently evaluated their experience as worse. GSA
speculated that age and those coming from private office cultures might have been factors
indicating that some personnel do not thrive in a co-located environment.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:123 [In general, the
integrated tea..] (13:3536-13:3699) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
In general, the integrated team benefited from co-location, however the team identified some
nuances that need to be considered regarding the co-located space.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:124 [The team felt
that co-location..] (14:1630-14:1713) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Change orders]
The team felt that co-location was a significant factor in avoiding change orders.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:125 [As the
architects worked on th..] (14:1715-14:2047) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [Co-location]
As the architects worked on the design, co-location gave the contractor “early line of sight” to
what they were working on. Early communication, estimating and budget verification of the
architects’ “fat line drawings” kept the team on track, saved man hours in rework and ensured
the design was appropriate to the budget.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:126 [Co-location
also played a sign..] (14:2050-14:3163) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Culture fit] [Adequate Progress]
Co-location also played a significant role in reducing latency on the project and helped eliminate
rework, see Decision Making. The owner commented, “by the end of the job, there are thousands
of decisions that need to be made, they need to be made every week to continue progress.” The
owner described an experience on another job where the architect did not co-locate, “one day a
superintendent threw down his notebook in a meeting and said, ‘I’m not in the position to
schedule my problems’ and walked out of the room.” The owner felt this illustrated the value of
co-location well, because you can never predict all the issues that will arise and not having the
experts you need in the room can be frustrating and slow down the ability of others to perform.
Co-location provides context and nuance to the project and relationships. It helps each party
understand how their actions affect the other members of the team; it allows them to read
between the lines. The team felt the dependency and trust established by co-location yields
significant payback in latency reduction.

251

"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:71 (2) [In this case,
GSA committed to..] (8:1274-8:1987) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Confidence in project management]
Because of the commitment by the owner to support the project through it’s duration, the CMc
was more willing to partner with the architect and engineers to both prioritize work and let some
work shift later in the process because they were confident the integrated team would be there
“together feeling the day to day pains and rewards,” for the duration of the project
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:74 [SERA with
Cutler Anderson Arch..] (8:2795-8:2995) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
SERA with Cutler Anderson Architects was selected because they had already done the initial
design for GSA, had performed well and were committed to GSA’s Integrated/Collaborative
Delivery goals.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:79 [When team
members did not fit ..] (9:856-9:1405) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Remove Obstacles][Commitment]
When team members did not fit in with the culture, project leadership made the decision to
replace them. GSA characterizes integrated delivery as a dynamic process that is not about
solving one problem but rather a series of problems. “When issues arise, the problem may be
with scope of the project or could lie within the team composition itself.” The leadership was
very deliberate in assessing team members and at the time this study was conducted had replaced
the electrical designer, mechanical designer and landscape designer.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:88 [To best support
integrated del..] (10:2233-10:2426) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
To best support integrated delivery and new technologies (like BIM), investment in full time
staffing for the duration of the project was identified as a key shift required in the industry.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:18 [For the
contractor, IPD change..] (3:2614-3:2761) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
For the contractor, IPD changed the workplace culture; instead of pushing people out of the way
to meet schedule, everyone moved along together.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:79 [When team
members did not fit ..] (9:856-9:1405) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Remove Obstacles][Commitment]
When team members did not fit in with the culture, project leadership made the decision to
replace them. GSA characterizes integrated delivery as a dynamic process that is not about
solving one problem but rather a series of problems. “When issues arise, the problem may be
with scope of the project or could lie within the team composition itself.” The leadership was
very deliberate in assessing team members and at the time this study was conducted had replaced
the electrical designer, mechanical designer and landscape designer.

252

P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:81 [GSA Region 10
(R10) has been m..] (9:2899-9:3179) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [manage]
GSA Region 10 (R10) has been maturing collaborative processes for the past 10 years with much
of the philosophy and strategies rooted in process-based management, which focuses on
designing outcomes, making tradeoffs to optimize time, and uses statistical quality control.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:110 [GSA followed
the philosophy of..] (12:3434-12:4226) (Super)
Codes: [Manage][Culture fit]
GSA followed the philosophy of “intentional maturation” of the team. Team members who came
on board with different expectations based on the way they’ve done it previously had to adapt
and adjust to others; it required team calibration. It was particularly difficult for those team
members who have been in the project management role, or sole decision maker, because the
integrated team was all about distributed decision making and exploited multiple areas of
expertise. Distribution of leadership was facilitated by the Master Schedule process; team
members best suited for a particular task item or issue were assigned as Subject Matter Experts
(SMEs) and were responsible for bringing the item to resolution and closure, see more in
Leadership and Implementation.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:115 [the team
believed that the IPD..] (13:242-13:504) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
the team believed that the IPD process reinvented how they thought of the work and redefined
their relationships to create a team synergy. They concluded the goal and value of IPD is
innovation, which invigorated their team and kept the energy level high.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:116 [The team
commented that the be..] (13:510-13:927) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Culture Fit] [Commitment]
The team commented that the best value comes out of IPD when team members free themselves
from their traditional roles and responsibilities. To do this, the team requires at least one member
to bring energy and passion, breaking others out of old routines and preventing them from
slipping back in to traditional roles. In this project, the owner filled that role, acting as a
champion for the IPD process.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:120 [GSA
representatives understood..] (13:1382-13:1865) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
GSA representatives understood that this way of working required significantly more senior and
highly qualified people than would typically be used on a traditional project. These staffing
decisions did not lead to a scripted top-down project but created an atmosphere where the team
scripted the project throughout the whole process. To facilitate the scripting process, expertise
needed to be gained incrementally, allowing the members to evolve alongside the process

253

P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:126 [Co-location
also played a sign..] (14:2050-14:3163) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Culture fit] [Adequate Progress]
Co-location also played a significant role in reducing latency on the project and helped eliminate
rework, see Decision Making. The owner commented, “by the end of the job, there are thousands
of decisions that need to be made, they need to be made every week to continue progress.” The
owner described an experience on another job where the architect did not co-locate, “one day a
superintendent threw down his notebook in a meeting and said, ‘I’m not in the position to
schedule my problems’ and walked out of the room.” The owner felt this illustrated the value of
co-location well, because you can never predict all the issues that will arise and not having the
experts you need in the room can be frustrating and slow down the ability of others to perform.
Co-location provides context and nuance to the project and relationships. It helps each party
understand how their actions affect the other members of the team; it allows them to read
between the lines. The team felt the dependency and trust established by co-location yields
significant payback in latency reduction.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:22 [Compared to
traditional delive..] (3:3450-3:3620) (Super)
Codes: [monitor]
Compared to traditional delivery, the owner was more informed and aware of claims and change
order risk at all levels, from the prime contractor to the sub-contractor.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:56 [Standard GSA
contracts require..] (6:3340-6:3568) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
Standard GSA contracts require quarterly performance evaluation reports that assess
approximately fifty elements of effort. Coupling the performance evaluation with contract
administration allows GSA to monetize performance
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:82 [For this project,
GSA R10 also..] (9:3184-9:3466) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Monitor]
For this project, GSA R10 also incorporated IPD practices based on lessons from AIA and Sutter
as well as inviting informal peer review. DLR and Mortenson were asked to review the team’s
practices and project execution, which infused the project team with new process ideas.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:55 [Because GSA
Region 10 would li..] (6:2775-6:3073) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
Because GSA Region 10 would like to move away from the P100 conventional methodology to
an integrated delivery process, specific measures were developed to track throughout the process
including: schedule, cost, constructability, document accuracy and reduction of design overwork
and rework"
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:14 [This allows the
owner to ident..] (3:1510-3:1647) (Super)

254

Codes: [Manage]
This allows the owner to identify where they are under-optimizing expensive resources, so
adjustments can be made to meet cost goals.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:25 [The contractor
felt integratio..] (3:4210-3:4748) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Problem Addressed]
The contractor felt integration made the most significant difference on time sensitive issues. A
major issue arose due to ice concerns on the “reeds,” an important design feature on the west
façade of the building. The team had to redesign the west façade in 7 weeks, and they
accomplished it because all team members were equally vested in the project and had to work
together, the owner supported them. The team felt strongly that the outcome would have been
much different (less successful) on a non-integrated project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:40 [The primary
collaborative stra..] (5:3080-5:3317) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The primary collaborative strategies referred to included early involvement of constructor (subconsultants and sub-contractors) and collaboration with constructor to review cost, schedule,
constructability and material selection.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:42 [The CMc
Contract, issued 7 mon..] (5:3461-5:3948) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The CMc Contract, issued 7 months after the A/E contract, has more specific language
describing tasks and commitments required, such as: attending bi-weekly design review meetings,
ongoing constructability reviews, input on resolving issues identified through constructability
reviews, advanced determination of procurement packages, ongoing value engineering,
assistance with LEED certification, and development of shared project team management
processes and protocols.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:46 [Key first tier
subcontractors ..] (6:628-6:714) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Key first tier subcontractors were selected as part of the CMc solicitation process
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:48 [Integrated
document developmen..] (6:720-6:784) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Integrated document development
Shared collocation facilities
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:68 [The executive
team has several..] (7:3769-8:589) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Information sharing mechanisms]

255

The executive team has several lengthy meetings every week; project managers broke out from
those sessions and distributed the message to the integrated team members. The implementation
process on this project relied on the Master Schedule (MS) and mini Master Schedule (mMS)
(see Implementation) to identify and communicate the priority tasks. The MS process was based
on an open source philosophy; everyone on the team had the ability to contribute to the mMS
subtask list and take ownership of an item, effectively distributing leadership among the
integrated team. These distributed leaders were referred to as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and
ensured the person most qualified to bring an item to resolution was empowered to do so.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:69 [Integrated
representatives fro..] (8:905-8:1122) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Integrated representatives from all the primary contract parties as well as relevant trades
attended each meeting and a point person was assigned to each topic so that first lines of
communication were clear.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:77 [Because of the
integrated team..] (8:5129-9:338) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Because of the integrated team, the relationships and technical support were in place to make this
major change without delaying or otherwise negatively impacting the project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:81 [GSA Region 10
(R10) has been m..] (9:2899-9:3179) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [manage]
GSA Region 10 (R10) has been maturing collaborative processes for the past 10 years with much
of the philosophy and strategies rooted in process-based management, which focuses on
designing outcomes, making tradeoffs to optimize time, and uses statistical quality control.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:82 [For this project,
GSA R10 also..] (9:3184-9:3466) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Monitor]
For this project, GSA R10 also incorporated IPD practices based on lessons from AIA and Sutter
as well as inviting informal peer review. DLR and Mortenson were asked to review the team’s
practices and project execution, which infused the project team with new process ideas.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:87 [GSA increased
meeting frequenc..] (10:1383-10:1773) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Remove Obstacles]
GSA increased meeting frequency to mitigate the team’s performance risk. T&M reduced the
team member risk since all their time was compensated. This reduced risk and the detailed
Master Scheduling process allowed the team to develop very accurate proposals for the fixed
price agreements in the Design Development and Implementation phases, ultimately reducing
risk to the owner.

256

P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:90 [Developing the
MS also functio..] (10:3880-10:4332) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Trust]
Developing the MS also functioned as a team-building tool. Working through MS items, the
team learned to cooperate with each other and gain a clear understanding of the team dynamic
the owner required. This additional planning period provided the team the opportunity to work
closely with the owner and each other, developing enough confidence and trust in the
relationship to speak candidly about what was really important to the project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:91 [Through biweekly review at th..] (10:4701-10:4838) (Super)
Codes: [manage]
Through bi-weekly review at the executive level, this tool helped the owner identify items in
which they were willing to “disinvest.”
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:95 [Part of the mMS
process that h..] (11:533-11:699) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [manage]
Part of the mMS process that helped foster a sense of ownership across the entire project team
was the assignment an individual team member to certain task items.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:100 [. The architect
managed the di..] (11:2901-11:3129) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The architect managed the diary, but the CMc and owner also contributed content each week.
Development of this tool was partly in response to rumor control, see Workplace; the purpose
was to keep everyone on the same page
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:106 [GSA facilitated
the orientatio..] (12:1154-12:1415) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
GSA facilitated the orientation and relationship building of the entire team by using several
strategies, many of which are rooted in process-based management such as: designing outcomes,
eliminating waste and making the system as efficient as possible.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:107 [There were
several innovations..] (12:1429-12:2503) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Early involvement effectiveness]
There were several innovations attributed to early involvement and the integrated make-up of the
team. One example was the idea to design a model unit for the 16 inbound tenant design work.
Because of the strong partnerships, the owner was open to this idea, which significantly
improved the team’s ability to meet the building’s energy performance goals. The model unit
established a base design concept that optimized the building’s energy profile and incorporated
cost and constructability input from the CMc. Armed with this information, the architects could
explain to the tenants the science behind the design and the cost implications of design changes
to the base design. In the end, all the models were modified to meet each tenants’ specific

257

program requirements, but in general they followed the basic layout concept because the tenants
had a clear understanding of the overall building goals, reasons behind the design, and
implications of change. It also eliminated the time consuming and costly cycle of designing and
redesigning
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:110 [GSA followed
the philosophy of..] (12:3434-12:4226) (Super)
Codes: [Manage][Culture fit]
GSA followed the philosophy of “intentional maturation” of the team. Team members who came
on board with different expectations based on the way they’ve done it previously had to adapt
and adjust to others; it required team calibration. It was particularly difficult for those team
members who have been in the project management role, or sole decision maker, because the
integrated team was all about distributed decision making and exploited multiple areas of
expertise. Distribution of leadership was facilitated by the Master Schedule process; team
members best suited for a particular task item or issue were assigned as Subject Matter Experts
(SMEs) and were responsible for bringing the item to resolution and closure, see more in
Leadership and Implementation.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:113 [Important to
note, utilizing t..] (12:4939-12:5104) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Important to note, utilizing the integrated team for quick and effective decision-making is
dependent on the ability of every team member to influence the outcome
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:114 [This behavior
and willingness ..] (12:5107-12:5268) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Commitment]
This behavior and willingness to engage was strongly influenced by clear communication by the
owner; everyone was expected to take ownership of the project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:116 [The team
commented that the be..] (13:510-13:927) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Culture Fit] [Commitment]
The team commented that the best value comes out of IPD when team members free themselves
from their traditional roles and responsibilities. To do this, the team requires at least one member
to bring energy and passion, breaking others out of old routines and preventing them from
slipping back in to traditional roles. In this project, the owner filled that role, acting as a
champion for the IPD process.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:119 [Constant
reminders were requir..] (13:1153-13:1379) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Remove obstacles]
Constant reminders were required to eliminate biases formed by past experiences in the design
and construction industry. To establish new team norms, the owner create a controlled tension
that kept team members off guard.

258

"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:25 [The contractor
felt integratio..] (3:4210-3:4748) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Problem Addressed]
The contractor felt integration made the most significant difference on time sensitive issues. A
major issue arose due to ice concerns on the “reeds,” an important design feature on the west
façade of the building. The team had to redesign the west façade in 7 weeks, and they
accomplished it because all team members were equally vested in the project and had to work
together, the owner supported them. The team felt strongly that the outcome would have been
much different (less successful) on a non-integrated project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:112 [An example is
the successful r..] (12:4465-12:4937) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Problem addressed]
An example is the successful resolution of an error in the fire system identified by the electrical
contractors. Because the issue was brought to the owner immediately, a decision was made in 3
days as opposed to months of debate. Changes only had to be made to the first floor and
incorporated in progress work, whereas in a more traditional delivery method, the issue would
not have been identified until late and would have required rework to all floors.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:133 [First was
learning how to arti..] (15:2486-15:2579) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Problem Addressed]
First was learning how to articulate design/model requirements for the different disciplines. The
team found that they were being too literal with the requirements for each discipline and phase.
They found they couldn’t predict (or expect) that mechanical or electrical follow the same design
path as structural or plumbing, and in some cases this was forcing the architecture before the
contractor needed it for buyout. To address this and track each design path, the team used what
they called Snap Shots, literally taking pictures of design development status, using Revit to print
the 2D document set of exactly what they had at certain points in time Implementation. Each
Snap Shot was a deliverable package, which looked similar to traditional submissions, that got
more specific by discipline or building system as the project evolved to match what HSW needed
for procurement and buyout. This process would not have been possible without the intense
coordination made possible by co-location and early contributions by the trade contractors.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:126 [Co-location
also played a sign..] (14:2050-14:3163) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Culture fit] [Adequate Progress]
Co-location also played a significant role in reducing latency on the project and helped eliminate
rework, see Decision Making. The owner commented, “by the end of the job, there are thousands
of decisions that need to be made, they need to be made every week to continue progress.” The
owner described an experience on another job where the architect did not co-locate, “one day a
superintendent threw down his notebook in a meeting and said, ‘I’m not in the position to
schedule my problems’ and walked out of the room.” The owner felt this illustrated the value of
co-location well, because you can never predict all the issues that will arise and not having the
experts you need in the room can be frustrating and slow down the ability of others to perform.
Co-location provides context and nuance to the project and relationships. It helps each party

259

understand how their actions affect the other members of the team; it allows them to read
between the lines. The team felt the dependency and trust established by co-location yields
significant payback in latency reduction.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:139 [As a federal
organization, one..] (6:1823-6:2267) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Cost Growth]
As a federal organization, one of GSA’s public policy goals is to engage small businesses that
include small disadvantaged, women-owned, HUBZone, veteran, and service-disabled veteranowned small businesses, at both the prime and subcontracting levels. Integrated delivery allowed
them to not only exceed their baseline goal of $22 million in contracts by $11 million, but also
improved those agreements through strong partnership.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:54 [Congress
funded the project ba..] (6:2405-6:2645) (Super)
Codes: [Change oder]
Congress funded the project based on 9% change orders and 5% contingency costs. Late in the
project, the owner was confident they would come in almost 5% below those estimates, which
results in significant funds returned to the owner
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:124 [The team felt
that co-location..] (14:1630-14:1713) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Change orders]
The team felt that co-location was a significant factor in avoiding change orders.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:52 [The primary
building performan..] (6:1508-6:1820) (Super)
Codes: [Sustainability]
The primary building performance goal was to address the High Performance Green Building
design principles. This goal was clearly communicated during a two day High Performance
Building Workshop. Attendees included the A/E team, GSA and interested contractors
(workshop was held prior to CMc selection).

Neutral
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:84 [GSA’s officer
found it challen..] (9:3894-9:4210) (Super)
Codes: [Training]
GSA’s officer found it challenging to get the team members (contractor, architect and
consultants) to slow down and build the team before beginning the work. The team-building step
was facilitated by the Master Schedule process, (see Implementation), which began shortly after
SERA’s contract was reinstated
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:23 [Technical
Complexity was a fac..] (3:3624-3:3689) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
Technical Complexity was a factor but not the primary motivator.

260

P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:24 [As a
modernization (renovation..] (3:3691-3:3941) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
As a modernization (renovation) of an existing building, the additional coordination between
designers and trade contractors provided by IPD is considered a significant advantage and helps
address unknown field conditions before construction. "
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:29 [This team had
incentives tied ..] (4:2362-4:2482) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
This team had incentives tied to the CMc, but did not have a shared risk/reward pool on this
project, see Risk/Reward.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:60 [Other incentive
strategies com..] (7:849-7:962) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
Other incentive strategies common on GSA projects include award term incentives and “Best in
Class” recognition.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:61 [Additionally,
GSA is currently..] (7:1217-7:1419) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor] [Reward Structure- Incentive]
Additionally, GSA is currently developing a “Best in Class” sub-contractor process to evaluate
and catalog sub-contractors that work over a hundred hours on the project and meet performance
goals.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:41 [The contract
also defines deci..] (5:3319-5:3456) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [manage]
The contract also defines decision-making criteria to be in the “best interest of the project” and
outlines tools for task management.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:31 [This project
was fiscally tran..] (4:3277-4:3339) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
This project was fiscally transparent between contract parties,
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:47 [Optimized
building information..] (6:790-6:828) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
Optimized building information modeling
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:128 [GSA would
like to push the use..] (14:3861-14:4194) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]

261

GSA would like to push the use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) to its fullest extent but
actual implementation lags behind expectations. The architect and contractor worked to add the
schedule dimension (4D) to BIM, however incorporating knowledge from trades prefabrication
schedule to cost models proved difficult.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:129 [This project
used the BIM mode..] (15:921-15:1482) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
This project used the BIM model for coordination, clash detection, constructability reviews and
scheduling. To advance the use of the model in design and construction, GSA pushed SERA to
use it for tenant communication and virtualization and HSW to use the model for layouts.
Although more scheduling power could be harnessed, this is the first project for GSA R10 to
achieve 4D with BIM. Eventually, GSA would like HSW to conduct cost estimates (5D) with the
model and bill material outputs to each subcontractor using it as a calibration tool.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:134 [Second was
determining the del..] (15:3573-15:3628) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
Second was determining the deliverables for the project.Traditionally they would be providing
GSA with a marked upprint; however in this case they are delivering a model that willembed a
great deal of information including construction photosand digital survey information. Part of the
problem is they are“still making the sausage” and aren’t exactly sure what it will looklike in the
end.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:90 [Developing the
MS also functio..] (10:3880-10:4332) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Trust]
Developing the MS also functioned as a team-building tool. Working through MS items, the
team learned to cooperate with each other and gain a clear understanding of the team dynamic
the owner required. This additional planning period provided the team the opportunity to work
closely with the owner and each other, developing enough confidence and trust in the
relationship to speak candidly about what was really important to the project.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:65 [To be an active
manager of the..] (7:2855-7:3082) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
To be an active manager of the process, GSA R10 in particular, believes the owner needs to be
onsite, engaged in the integrative process and forming relationships, as opposed to hiring agents
to be owner’s representatives. Often this is a challenge, especially on the institution side where
owners are operating in large bureaucracies who by nature are often risk adverse. GSA’s officer
was officially only half time with this project although spent closer to 75% time on site. He
believes IPD should require the owner to be on-site full time due to the resource intensive nature
of IPD. Investing in IPD is a strategic decision and the owner needs to be prepared to provide the
resources around it.

262

P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:73 [GSA is in the
process of writi..] (8:2464-8:2780) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
GSA is in the process of writing criteria for successful team selection; they have identified a few
they think are critical to IPD. One is familiarity with each other and an instinctual dynamic.
Another is passion, a real desire and commitment to work together, learn and innovate for the
good of the project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:85 [GSA’s officer
found it challen..] (9:3894-10:316) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Commitment]
GSA’s officer found it challenging to get the team members (contractor, architect and
consultants) to slow down and build the team before beginning the work. The team-building step
was facilitated by the Master Schedule process, (see Implementation), which began shortly after
SERA’s contract was reinstated. The MS process continued for 4 months before the contractors
were on board and 2 more months while the contractors went through the orientation phase. The
six months of planning, identifying problems, analyzing issues and clarifying the goals was
“excruciating” for some members of the team who wanted to begin designing sooner. However,
most agreed that the longer process allowed right person to come in and be exceptionally
effective at the right time, reducing wasted effort.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:95 [Part of the mMS
process that h..] (11:533-11:699) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [manage]
Part of the mMS process that helped foster a sense of ownership across the entire project team
was the assignment an individual team member to certain task items.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:114 [This behavior
and willingness ..] (12:5107-12:5268) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Commitment]
This behavior and willingness to engage was strongly influenced by clear communication by the
owner; everyone was expected to take ownership of the project.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:116 [The team
commented that the be..] (13:510-13:927) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Culture Fit] [Commitment]
The team commented that the best value comes out of IPD when team members free themselves
from their traditional roles and responsibilities. To do this, the team requires at least one member
to bring energy and passion, breaking others out of old routines and preventing them from
slipping back in to traditional roles. In this project, the owner filled that role, acting as a
champion for the IPD process."
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:38 [The A/E
contract contains some..] (5:2480-5:2820) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]

263

The A/E contract contains some softer language about the collaborative philosophy and behavior
expectations. The contract describes the integrated process as relationship based as opposed to
transactional (paper) based and also explains the dynamic nature of IPD, expecting parties to
“redefine and reinvent the way work is done.”
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:75 [The integrated
delivery proces..] (8:3693-8:3860) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
The integrated delivery process was a key topic in the Early Exchange meetings; it was made
clear all applicants had to strongly support a collaborative approach.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:85 [GSA’s officer
found it challen..] (9:3894-10:316) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Commitment]
GSA’s officer found it challenging to get the team members (contractor, architect and
consultants) to slow down and build the team before beginning the work. The team-building step
was facilitated by the Master Schedule process, (see Implementation), which began shortly after
SERA’s contract was reinstated. The MS process continued for 4 months before the contractors
were on board and 2 more months while the contractors went through the orientation phase. The
six months of planning, identifying problems, analyzing issues and clarifying the goals was
“excruciating” for some members of the team who wanted to begin designing sooner. However,
most agreed that the longer process allowed right person to come in and be exceptionally
effective at the right time, reducing wasted effort.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:122 [Results from
the first survey ..] (13:2617-13:3531) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Culture Fit]
Results from the first survey showed very positive evaluations of co-location in terms of
professional development, team spirit, and the use of BIM. The majority of the team felt
innovation and improvement was equivalent to non co-located experiences, though only 2% felt
it was worse while 17% felt co-location improved innovation. Productivity had the least
consensus, with 14% of team members ranking productivity in the co-located office worse than
non co-located experiences, 28% felt productivity was the same, and 18% felt it was better.
Consistently scoring low was the physical work environment itself. The survey process also
revealed that certain individuals consistently evaluated their experience as worse. GSA
speculated that age and those coming from private office cultures might have been factors
indicating that some personnel do not thrive in a co-located environment.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:78 [For the
architects, selected t..] (9:661-9:851) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
For the architects, selected team members met two important criteria beyond the designated skill
set: an ability to take input from multiple sources and individuals with an open mind.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:41 [The contract
also defines deci..] (5:3319-5:3456) (Super)

264

Codes: [Decision Making System] [manage]
The contract also defines decision-making criteria to be in the “best interest of the project” and
outlines tools for task management.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:45 [GSA providing
on-site manageme..] (6:495-6:526) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
GSA providing on-site management
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:67 [Team Structure •
Executive Tea..] (7:2381-7:2484) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Team Structure
• Executive Team (core team)
• Integrated Team
• Subject Matter Experts (SME
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:69 [Integrated
representatives fro..] (8:905-8:1122) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Integrated representatives from all the primary contract parties as well as relevant trades
attended each meeting and a point person was assigned to each topic so that first lines of
communication were clear.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:63 [Both the A/E
and CMc contract ..] (7:1804-7:1889) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
Both the A/E and CMc contract specify use of Alternate Dispute Resolution practices;

Negative
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:35 [The A/E’s
contract does not in..] (5:1532-5:1717) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool] [Reward structure liability
waiver] [Reward structure_insurance]
The A/E’s contract does not include any of the collaborative commercial terms common to IPD
projects such as shared risk/reward, limited liability or special insurance requirements.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:57 [GSA clarified
that if they cou..] (6:3740-6:3883) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
The A/E team did not have any financial incentives tied to project metrics because the original
design work was completed under the conventional P100 process. GSA clarified that if they
could start this project from scratch they would have negotiated a fixed fee reduction with
matched risk reward. For example, if the architect typically proposes a 15% fee, the owner
would accept7%, with 8% at risk. Incentive payments would be determined by mutually
determined performance goals, tracked and measured throughout the delivery process.

265

"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:29 [This team had
incentives tied ..] (4:2362-4:2482) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
This team had incentives tied to the CMc, but did not have a shared risk/reward pool on this
project, see Risk/Reward.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:35 [The A/E’s
contract does not in..] (5:1532-5:1717) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool] [Reward structure liability
waiver] [Reward structure_insurance]
The A/E’s contract does not include any of the collaborative commercial terms common to IPD
projects such as shared risk/reward, limited liability or special insurance requirements.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:30 [Based on
interviews and review..] (4:3145-4:3252) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver] Based on interviews and review of the contract, this
team did not have waivers on liability, see Liability
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:35 [The A/E’s
contract does not in..] (5:1532-5:1717) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool] [Reward structure liability
waiver] [Reward structure_insurance]
The A/E’s contract does not include any of the collaborative commercial terms common to IPD
projects such as shared risk/reward, limited liability or special insurance requirements.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:62 [There is no
specific limit on ..] (7:1703-7:1780) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
There is no specific limit on liability or “no-sue” clause in the contracts.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:35 [The A/E’s
contract does not in..] (5:1532-5:1717) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool] [Reward structure liability
waiver] [Reward structure_insurance]
The A/E’s contract does not include any of the collaborative commercial terms common to IPD
projects such as shared risk/reward, limited liability or special insurance requirements.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:64 [No unique
characteristics, sta..] (7:2228-7:2302) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
No unique characteristics, standard professional liability products used.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:9 [The contractor
reports a conti..] (3:556-3:783) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Confidence in Project Management]

266

The contractor reports a continued lack of owners willing to pay for IPD, and expects that the
situation is unlikely to change in the current market where some contractors are bidding well
under the actual cost of work.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:9 [The contractor
reports a conti..] (3:556-3:783) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Confidence in Project Management]
The contractor reports a continued lack of owners willing to pay for IPD, and expects that the
situation is unlikely to change in the current market where some contractors are bidding well
under the actual cost of work.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:71 [In this case,
GSA committed to..] (8:1274-8:1987) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
In this case, GSA committed to keep a team in place for the duration of the project. On the
majority of the CMc’s other work, the architect and consultants disappear from the project
during the construction phase, spending only part time responding to field issues. This set up
causes major latency risk for the contractor.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:10 [The owner felt
that, as an age..] (3:785-3:877) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
The owner felt that, as an agency, GSA is not capitalizing on the value proposition of IPD.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:34 [GSA’s
Contracting Officer feel..] (5:1065-5:1314) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
GSA’s Contracting Officer feels strongly that tri-party arrangements are not necessary for
Integrated Project Delivery, especially for public projects, which would require a change in
legislation to move away from existing contract structures. He felt multi-party agreements are
too much of a “quantum change” and that the financial incentives recommended for IPD can be
done with existing contract forms by using award term and milestone payments.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:37 [The owner
believed that the se..] (5:1985-5:2452) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Culture fit]
The owner believed that the separation of architect and contractor in this project provided a
major benefit over design-build contract because of the collaborative tension between the
architect and contractor. As separate entities, both the architect and contractor can passionately
explain their position on certain decisions; this gave the owner the luxury of being the final
arbiter and overall a better understanding of the consequences of decisions.
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:39 [The CMc
contract contains no r..] (5:2825-5:2930) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]

267

The CMc contract contains no reference to relational terms or the dynamic nature of the delivery
process
P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:76 [There were
alignment issues wi..] (8:4752-8:5127) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Remove Obstacles]
There were alignment issues with a primary design consultant; they did not understand the owner
expectations. The team leadership had to make a decision to keep investing in a weak link or to
let them go. The team decided to keep the consultant for the core and shell portion, but shifted
the tenant build out scope to the contractor using a design-build contract.
"P 9: 05 Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Modernization.pdf - 9:37 [The owner
believed that the se..] (5:1985-5:2452) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Culture fit]
The owner believed that the separation of architect and contractor in this project provided a
major benefit over design-build contract because of the collaborative tension between the
architect and contractor. As separate entities, both the architect and contractor can passionately
explain their position on certain decisions; this gave the owner the luxury of being the final
arbiter and overall a better understanding of the consequences of decisions.

Not Given
There is no quotation under this category.

268

Project 6
General Information
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:1 [Autodesk Inc.] (1:134-1:146) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
Autodesk Inc.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:2 [Waltham, Massachusetts] (2:176-2:197) (Super)
Codes: [Location]
Waltham, Massachusetts
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:3 [Multi-party contract] (2:248-2:267) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Multi-party contract
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:14 [Contract Type • Integrated Pro..] (3:1499-3:1562) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Contract Type
• Integrated Project Delivery Agreement (IPDA)
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:17 [Major subcontractors (mechanic..] (3:2370-3:2539) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Major subcontractors (mechanical/fire protection, electrical, and drywall) were also brought in to
the agreement, worked at cost, and shared in the incentive program.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:4 [May 2008] (2:372-2:379) (Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
May 2008
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:5 [January 2009] (2:398-2:409) (Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
January 2009
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:7 [Autodesk Inc., a company that ..] (2:412-2:777) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
Autodesk Inc., a company that creates design software for the AEC industry, wanted to highlight
ways in which its own technology could support Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Building
Information Modeling (BIM), design-to-fabrication, sustainability, and building performance
analysis. The company decided to put those goals forward with its own project
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:6 [Requirements of the project in..] (2:1282-2:1394) (Super)
Codes: [LEED certification intended]
Requirements of the project included very high sustainability goals (LEED Platinum for
Commercial Interiors.)

Positive
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:8 [Autodesk’s first experiment wi..] (2:1631-2:1798) (Super)
269

Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner]
Autodesk’s first experiment with IPD was a 16,500 square foot customer briefing center and
29,300 square foot office tenant improvement in downtown San Francisco."
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:9 [Market Position Autodesk was m..] (2:2532-2:2786) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market Position Autodesk was motivated for unique reasons. As the primary developer of
software for the AEC industry, Autodesk was motivated to select IPD as the delivery method to
showcase how their products support this emerging delivery method.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:11 [Schedule Predictability Meetin..] (3:134-3:294) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule PredictabilityMeeting the schedule was particularly important to the owner because
they had to vacate their existing facilities by a certain date.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:12 [Risk Management Autodesk is ex..] (3:554-3:858) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk] [Strong Motivator]
Risk Management Autodesk is experienced with office build-outs and typically followed either
design-bid-build or CM at Risk delivery methods. Given the aggressive schedule and demanding
sustainable design goals, they determined the only way to deliver the project in was to use an
IPD approach.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:12 [Risk Management Autodesk is ex..] (3:554-3:858) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk] [Strong Motivator]
Risk Management Autodesk is experienced with office build-outs and typically followed either
design-bid-build or CM at Risk delivery methods. Given the aggressive schedule and demanding
sustainable design goals, they determined the only way to deliver the project in was to use an
IPD approach.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:19 [The contract establishes an In..] (4:147-4:1137) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
The contract establishes an Incentive Compensation Layer (ICL) in which the architects’ and
builders’ anticipated profit is put at risk. If specific goals are met, designers and builders receive
their normal profit, but jointly, not separately. If they are exceeded in measurable ways the firms
are eligible for additional compensation. The ICL could adjust plus or minus 20% depending on
whether project goals (see Goals) were met or exceeded and was structured as follows:
• If the project cost is under budget, 60 percent of the saving is added to the ICL.
• If the project is over budget, the excess comes out of the ICL until it is exhausted.
• If the project runs over schedule, an amount per day is deducted from the ICL.
• There was no bonus for beating the schedule since this was of no value to the owner.
• The third-party quality assessment process balanced cost and time considerations with design
goals.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:19 [The contract establishes an In..] (4:147-4:1137) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]

270

The contract establishes an Incentive Compensation Layer (ICL) in which the architects’ and
builders’ anticipated profit is put at risk. If specific goals are met, designers and builders receive
their normal profit, but jointly, not separately. If they are exceeded in measurable ways the firms
are eligible for additional compensation. The ICL could adjust plus or minus 20% depending on
whether project goals (see Goals) were met or exceeded and was structured as follows:
• If the project cost is under budget, 60 percent of the saving is added to the ICL.
• If the project is over budget, the excess comes out of the ICL until it is exhausted.
• If the project runs over schedule, an amount per day is deducted from the ICL.
• There was no bonus for beating the schedule since this was of no value to the owner.
• The third-party quality assessment process balanced cost and time considerations with design
goals.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:20 [The parties waived all claims ..] (4:2640-4:2761) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
The parties waived all claims against each other except those arising from fraud, willful
misconduct or gross negligence
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:34 [Another strategy to provide ne..] (5:4152-6:390) (Super)
Codes: [Information sharing mechanism]
Another strategy to provide needed information to the building team in a timely manner was the
creation of a Building Advisory Team that was assembled early on to provide programming
input from building users. There was a bit of struggle between Autodesk’s software engineers,
who wanted maximum privacy, and the goal of LEED Platinum, which can only be achieved by
allowing natural light to deeply penetrate the space.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:36 [Project finances were very tra..] (6:1814-6:2029) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
Project finances were very transparent, which helped enable the team to make innovative design
and construction de-cisions that improved design quality and saved time and money, see
Decision Making for detail.
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:37 [The design and build team was ..] (6:2049-6:2621) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency] [Manage] [actual cost growth]
The design and build team was held to an overall budget, but was completely free to move
money among line items. Money could be taken from carpeting and added to design fees, for
example. The ability of the team to move money between line items also meant that savings
could be achieved by pooling resources. For example, one lift could be used by multiple trades.
Cleanup could be done by lower wage workers at night rather than by highly paid tradesmen
during the work day. Savings from one line item could be placed back into the project in another
area.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:40 [At-risk subcontractors were al..] (7:547-7:707) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
At-risk subcontractors were all BIM-enabled. They provided detailed unit costs up front and
Tocci assumed responsibility for taking quantities off the model.

271

P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:43 [Design-to-fabrication was used..] (7:996-7:1094) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
Design-to-fabrication was used for the customer-briefing center’s distinctive wood panel ceiling;
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:44 [KlingStubbins learned that clo..] (7:1416-7:1712) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
KlingStubbins learned that close collaboration with builders (see Early Involvement) made
redundant detailing unnecessary. The process also freed architects to spend more time on site and
much less time reviewing RFIs and submittals. In many cases shop drawings were eliminated
altogether.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:30 [One major advantage of IPD for..] (5:2794-5:3180) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
One major advantage of IPD for the builder is the ability to enable early procurement of timeand cost-variable materials and services. Jack Short, Tocci’s Director of Project Planning,
estimates that 55% of the project value was added by lean, cost-plus subcontractors within the
incentive compensation layer agreement (see Risk/Reward) and 45% was traditionally procured.
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:31 [Another benefit of Tocci’s ear..] (5:3183-5:3506) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
Another benefit of Tocci’s early involvement in planning and local knowledge of the Waltham
area made it possible to call on relationships with building officials to insure that permitting and
inspections would not impede the schedule. Plan reviews that typically took 4-5 weeks after
submission were done in three.
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:35 [One of the major benefits of e..] (6:395-6:1797) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
One of the major benefits of early and integrated partnering was the flexibility it provided the
owner. Scope changes, totaling about 30% of the original budget, were added by the owner over
the course of the project. One was the build-out of 5,000 square feet of shell space to
accommodate personnel from a small company Autodesk had just acquired as well as an upgrade
to the shell building’s mechanical systems. Another scope change was purely design driven. Phil
Bernstein, Autodesk’s Vice President for Industry Strategy and Relations, and himself an
architect, decided that the design lacked a distinctive feature that would show the company’s
commitment to good design. He wanted to create a dramatic gesture by cutting a three-story
atrium though the space. The decision had to be made quickly so as not to upend the schedule.
KlingStubbins began modeling three alternatives and concurrently Tocci studied the impact on
cost and schedule. Within a week the team presented the options, using BIM to allow the owner
to virtually “walk through” and get a feeling for the space. Thus, the integrated team was able to
quickly and comprehensively address an owner request and provide enough information to make
an informed decision. It was decided that Autodesk’s business objectives were better served with
the atrium and the team was instructed to proceed.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:27 [The RFP clearly stated the own..] (5:409-5:708) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]

272

The RFP clearly stated the owner’s direction in terms of scope, budget, sustainability goals and
the mandated form of agreement. At first, another team was the front-runner but their corporate
leadership asked for fundamental changes in the proposed IPD arrangement, which Autodesk
declined.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:24 [By contract, three levels of c..] (4:3300-4:4007) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
By contract, three levels of collaborative teams were established to manage the project. A Project
Implementation Team (PIT) was set up to handle the day-to-day issues of the project. The
composition of the PIT included project participants whose work at any given time could impact
the project’s outcome. A Project Management Team (PMT) with representation of the owner,
architect, and builder, was established to manage the project and make decisions by consensus
(see Decision Making). If issues arose that could not be resolved by the PMT they were taken to
a higher level for final resolution: a Senior Management Team, (SMT) again with representation
of the three principal parties.
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:37 [The design and build team was ..] (6:2049-6:2621) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency] [Manage] [actual cost growth]
The design and build team was held to an overall budget, but was completely free to move
money among line items. Money could be taken from carpeting and added to design fees, for
example. The ability of the team to move money between line items also meant that savings
could be achieved by pooling resources. For example, one lift could be used by multiple trades.
Cleanup could be done by lower wage workers at night rather than by highly paid tradesmen
during the work day. Savings from one line item could be placed back into the project in another
area.
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:44 [KlingStubbins learned that clo..] (7:1416-7:1712) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
KlingStubbins learned that close collaboration with builders (see Early Involvement) made
redundant detailing unnecessary. The process also freed architects to spend more time on site and
much less time reviewing RFIs and submittals. In many cases shop drawings were eliminated
altogether.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:37 [The design and build team was ..] (6:2049-6:2621) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency] [Manage] [actual cost growth]
The design and build team was held to an overall budget, but was completely free to move
money among line items. Money could be taken from carpeting and added to design fees, for
example. The ability of the team to move money between line items also meant that savings
could be achieved by pooling resources. For example, one lift could be used by multiple trades.
Cleanup could be done by lower wage workers at night rather than by highly paid tradesmen
during the work day. Savings from one line item could be placed back into the project in another
area.

Neutral
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:10 [Cost Predictability As with an..] (2:2790-2:2936) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]

273

Cost PredictabilityAs with any project, cost predictability is important, but in this case schedule
and quality design were the driving forces.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:22 [Each party was required to mai..] (4:2855-4:3127) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
Each party was required to maintain typical insurance but with the provision that policies be
amended so that no right of subrogation (the ability to gain the rights belonging to one party
against a third party who caused a loss) existed against the other partners.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:39 [ool s • BIM • Face to face exc..] (6:3266-6:3366) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Tool s
• BIM
• Face to face exchange (part time co-locating for key project participants)
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:32 [There was a BIM execution plan..] (5:3571-5:3657)
(Super)
Codes: [BIM]
There was a BIM execution plan that defined roles and responsibilities for the model.
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:41 [Model Manager • Shared: Archit..] (6:3374-6:3534) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
Model Manager
• Shared: Architect (KlingStubbins) during design phases and CM (Tocci) during
implementation documents and construction phases.
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:42 [Although all the major players..] (7:713-7:801) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
Although all the major players used BIM, “interoperability of systems was a challenge,” said
Chris Leary, KlingStubbins’ principal in charge, “because the mechanical, plumbing, and
millwork subcontractors used specialized design-to-fabrication software rather than Revit.”
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:45 [Part of the promise of IPD is ..] (7:1715-7:1854) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
Part of the promise of IPD is to deliver to the owner, at the end of the project, a comprehensive
building model for use in operations.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:33 [Autodesk required in the RFP t..] (5:3760-5:4147) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
Autodesk required in the RFP that the architect and contractor “self-select,” therefore
KlingStubbins and Tocci Building Companies worked together from the very start of the project.
Additionally, several major subcontractors (mechanical/fire protection, electrical, and drywall)
were brought in to the agreement early on, worked at cost, and shared in the incentive program.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:38 [During design, Laura Handler, ..] (6:2914-6:3241) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]

274

During design, Laura Handler, Tocci’s Virtual Construction Manager, spent two days a week at
KlingStubbins’ Cambridge office. When the design reached the implementation phase the model
was moved from KlingStubbins’ to Tocci’s servers and Sarah Vekasy, KlingStubbins’ project
architect, moved to the construction site.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:16 [Within KlingStubbins there was..] (3:1956-3:2148) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
Within KlingStubbins there was initial hesitation by partners at the head office about using an
untested IPD agreement, but the desire to try something new and exciting overcame the doubts.
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:25 [They conducted a selection pro..] (5:288-5:402) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
They conducted a selection process to find an architect/builder team willing to try Integrated
Project Delivery
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:28 [In the end, KlingStubbins and ..] (5:711-5:912) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
In the end, KlingStubbins and Tocci were chosen because of their qualifications, familiarity with
the local market, BIM and LEED sophistication, and willingness to abide by a “true” IPD
agreement.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:26 [Autodesk management wanted the..] (5:150-5:287) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience] [culture fit]
Autodesk management wanted the design and build team to self-select; they did not want to
“mix and match” architects with builders.
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:29 [“one of the lessons learned is..] (5:2080-5:2236) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
“one of the lessons learned is that with IPD it’s crucial to select your architect and builder as a
team. There’s a synergy that’s just got to be there.”
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:23 [Champion • Owner Team Structur..] (4:3142-4:3297)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Champion
• Owner
Team Structure
• Senior Management Team (SMT),
• Project Management Team (PMT),
• Project Implementation Team (PIT)
P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:41 [Model Manager • Shared: Archit..] (6:3374-6:3534) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
Model Manager
• Shared: Architect (KlingStubbins) during design phases and CM (Tocci) during
implementation documents and construction phases.

275

"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:21 [Disputes were to be resolved b..] (4:2766-4:2841) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
Disputes were to be resolved by mediation or, if necessary, arbitration.

Negative
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:15 [The project was the first IPD ..] (3:1569-3:1648) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Architect] [Contractor]
The project was the first IPD experience for the design and construction team.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:15 [The project was the first IPD ..] (3:1569-3:1648) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Architect] [Contractor]
The project was the first IPD experience for the design and construction team.
"P10: 06 Autodesk Inc..pdf - 10:13 [Technical Complexity As an int..] (3:861-3:944) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
Technical Complexity: As an interior office build-out, this project was not complex;

Not Given
There is no quotation under this category.

276

Project 7
General Information
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:1 [Sutter Health Fairfield
Medica..] (1:160-1:212) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:3 [Healthcare - MOB] (2:2322:247) (Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Healthcare - MOB
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:7 [70,000 square foot medical
off..] (2:652-2:695) (Super)
Codes: [Project Size]
70,000 square foot medical office building
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:8 [$19.4 million] (2:10632:1076) (Super)
Codes: [Project Cost]
$19.4 million
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:2 [Fairfield, California]
(2:202-2:222) (Super)
Codes: [Location]
Fairfield, California
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:4 [Sutter IFOA] (2:261-2:271)
(Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Sutter IFOA
P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:15 [IFOA (Integrated Form of
Agree..] (3:1757-3:1791) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
IFOA (Integrated Form of Agreement)
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:5 [2005] (2:365-2:368)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
2005
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:6 [2007] (2:387-2:390)
(Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
2007

277

"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:9 [It was a relatively small
proj..] (2:1243-2:1655) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
It was a relatively small project for Sutter and as such, gave them the opportunity to test out a
new process of collaboratively designing and building facilities. Sutter worked with the Lean
Construction Institute to develop this new collaborative delivery method and with attorney Will
Lichtig, whose Sacramento firm has represented Sutter for 50 years, to draft the integrated, triparty contract. as such, gave them the opportunity to test out a new process of collaboratively
designing and building facilities. Sutter worked with the Lean Construction Institute to develop
this new collaborative delivery method and with attorney Will Lichtig, whose Sacramento firm
has represented Sutter for 50 years, to draft the integrated, tri-party contract.

Positive
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:23 [Sutter issued an RFQ to
select..] (5:852-5:1210) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
Sutter issued an RFQ to select an architect in the Spring of 2005. HGA interviewed and won the
job, in part because of a successful prior relationship with Sutter. Subsequently, Sutter asked
HGA to meet with Boldt to see if the firms’ cultures aligned. The firms had previously worked
together on traditional design-bid-build projects in the Midwest
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:11 [Cost Predictability
Reducing a..] (3:160-3:351) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]
Cost Predictability Reducing and managing costs while improving value was a primary
motivation for Sutter to use an integrated project delivery method on this project and future
projects.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:12 [Schedule Predictability
Schedu..] (3:355-3:513) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule Predictability: Schedule management was a primary motivation for Sutter to invest in
and test the IFOA contract and collaborative delivery method.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:13 [Risk Management One of
the pri..] (3:774-3:950) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
Risk Management: One of the primary reason Sutter developed an integrated project delivery
system was to reduce their exposure to unforeseen risk and number of disputations.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:31 [Implementation tools, such
as ..] (6:419-6:945) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]

278

Implementation tools, such as lean construction process, helped provide a framework for the
team to collaborate and make decisions, (see Implementation) . Room data sheets and narratives
were used to guide the team’s decision making to achieve the detailed requirements for each
room including equipment needs, finishes, utilities and other special requirements. This approach
was used to document and preserve decisions made by stakeholders during programming and
ensure that the final product met stated needs.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:35 [Boldt’s project web site
becam..] (6:2842-6:3077) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Patterns]
Boldt’s project web site became the repository of project information and the place where
submittals were made and processed electronically. The architect was able to process over 50%
of the submittals without paper documentation.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:36 [BIM enabled the group to
ident..] (7:315-7:979) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
BIM enabled the group to identify over 400 systems clashes during design, providing increased
accuracy and planning ability for fieldwork and significant cost and schedule savings. During
construction, BIM was used with GPS measurement to drop ductwork hangers into the metal
decking before concrete was placed. Layout that normally would have taken 2-3 weeks was
accomplished with greater accuracy in 2-3 days. The more accurate hanger placement allowed
for much larger sections of prefabricated ductwork and less field labor. For casework, much less
detailing effort was needed from the architect – with no loss of design and quality control.
P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:29 [An example of the benefits
of ..] (5:3799-6:306) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Early involvement] [Early involvement Effectiveness]
An example of the benefits of early involvement in conjuncture with Building Information
Modeling (BIM) is evident from the number of issues identified before construction.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:25 [One tool implemented on
this p..] (5:2841-5:3114) (Super)
Codes: [Other Tools]
One tool implemented on this project that helped document and preserve programming decisions
were ”room data sheets,” (see also Decision Making). This tool helped identify special
requirements and verify the final outcomes met the needs identified during programming
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:28 [The initial project team
consi..] (5:3138-5:3464) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement] [Early involvement Effectiveness]
The initial project team consisted of Sutter Health (the overall corporate entity), Sutter Regional
Medical Foundation (the local Sutter affiliate,) HGA and Boldt. This group, or Core Team,
together selected and brought on the main design-build subcontractors very early in the design
process, see Project Planning.

279

P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:29 [An example of the benefits
of ..] (5:3799-6:306) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Early involvement] [Early involvement Effectiveness]
An example of the benefits of early involvement in conjuncture with Building Information
Modeling (BIM) is evident from the number of issues identified before construction.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:34 [Participants reported a
feelin..] (6:2509-6:2780) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Participants reported a feeling of being respected as equal partners in a collaborative process in
which everyone’s opinion was valued. In addition to the efficiencies gained from such a process,
there was a sense of goodwill, trust and professional satisfaction.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:22 [The project team was
organized..] (4:4457-5:833) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The project team was organized into three leadership levels. An Integrated Project Team (IPT)
composed of project manager level representatives of Sutter, HGA, Boldt, and the major
subcontractors, Rosendin Electric and Southland Industries, met weekly throughout design and
construction; representatives of other trade contractors and stakeholders augmented the
committee when appropriate. A higher-level Core Team, consisting of a senior representative
each of Sutter, Boldt, and HGA met monthly to resolve issues passed up from the IPT. Any
decisions that could not be unanimously agreed at this level could be referred to an Executive
Level committee with higher-level representation from the three partners.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:38 [Boldt’s first estimate was
$22..] (3:3634-3:3918) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Cost Growth]
Boldt’s first estimate was $22,250,000. After an intense validation effort, a guaranteed maximum
price (GMP) of $19,573,000 was agreed by the three parties. The final construction cost was
$19,437,600, which included $836,500 of value-added, owner initiated scope additions.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:32 [Consideration of change
orders..] (6:949-6:1949) (Super)
Codes: [Change order] [Manage]
Consideration of change orders was limited to the following categories:
1. Owner generated–requested by owner, owner’s suppliers or consultants.
2. Unknown conditions–items that could not be anticipated during design or which builder could
not have anticipated during pre-construction.
3. Design refinement–added value to the owner. Owner would have paid for work if included in
bid documents.
4. Construction revision–no added value to the owner. Something had to be added, removed or
reworked once it was installed as a result of design error or omission.
5. Governing agency generated–the result of unforeseen agency code interpretations, newly
enacted codes or policies being enforced which could not have been anticipated during design or
bidding.

280

6. Builder generated–the result of corrective work requiring documentation to record the change,
owner accepted nonconforming work or builder-requested changes.By the end of the project
there were no change order.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:17 [Overall, Sutter was very
pleas..] (4:389-4:457) (Super)
Codes: [Participants Satisfaction]
Overall, Sutter was very pleased with the building and the process.

Neutral
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:10 [Market Position As an
organiza..] (2:2060-2:2275) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market Position
As an organization that builds and owns multiple large and complex facilities, Sutter Health had
both short and long term incentives to improve the delivery process and create better buildings.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:21 [The owner, architect and
build..] (4:3564-4:3758) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
The owner, architect and builder agreed to indemnify each other and to provide typical insurance,
including architects’ professional liability insurance, at limits established in the IFOA.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:30 [All books in regard to the
pro..] (6:323-6:399) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
All books in regard to the project are open. Also see Information Sharing.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:26 [Several lean construction
tech..] (5:2526-5:2684) (Super)
Codes: [Daily Huddle] [Last Planner System]
Several lean construction techniques such as, “Last planner,” “reliable promises,” “pull
scheduling,” and end-of-day “huddles” were employed with success.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:26 [Several lean construction
tech..] (5:2526-5:2684) (Super)
Codes: [Daily Huddle] [Last Planner System]
Several lean construction techniques such as, “Last planner,” “reliable promises,” “pull
scheduling,” and end-of-day “huddles” were employed with success.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:27 [Subcontractors found that
more..] (5:2049-5:2234) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement] [Early involvement Effectiveness]
Subcontractors found that more intense effort is required up front than in negotiated or designassist projects, but the payback comes later with rework almost completely eliminated.

281

"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:24 [Participants, when asked if
IP..] (5:1701-5:1904) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
Participants, when asked if IPD was applicable to all projects, felt that it is ideal for larger-scaled,
complex projects and perhaps does not have proportionate value in smaller, simpler projects.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:39 [Sutter needed the building
del..] (4:182-4:387) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Schedule Growth]
Sutter needed the building delivered in 25 months and that was accomplished under budget
despite a three-month delay for reprogramming at the start of the project and with the addition of
extra scope.

Negative
"P10: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 10:37 [This project was the, or
close..] (2:393-2:473) (Super)
Codes: [Architect] [General Contractor] [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
This project was the, or close to the, first “true” IPD project in the country.
"P10: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 10:37 [This project was the, or
close..] (2:393-2:473) (Super)
Codes: [Architect] [General Contractor] [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
This project was the, or close to the, first “true” IPD project in the country.
"P10: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 10:37 [This project was the, or
close..] (2:393-2:473) (Super)
Codes: [Architect] [General Contractor] [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
This project was the, or close to the, first “true” IPD project in the country.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:14 [Technical Complexity
This proj..] (3:1106-3:1430) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
Technical Complexity This project was small and simple compared to other healthcare projects
undertaken by the parties involved and therefore did not require any special coordination to
achieve the design and technical goals. This project was selected to test this delivery method
because of its relative simplicity.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:19 [The early version of IFOA
used..] (4:1041-4:1283) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
The early version of IFOA used for this project allowed for a financial incentive plan but the
participants elected not to implement it. “It was all so new,” said Bonnie Walker of HGA, “We
were still in the mindset of business as usual.”
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:33 [In this case, during
construct..] (6:2097-6:2280) (Super)

282

Codes: [Commitment] [manage]
In this case, during construction the owner’s project manager was distracted with another, more
troublesome project and the team felt that this might have slowed decision-making.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:37 [In this project, a few of
the ..] (7:1103-7:1218) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
In this project, a few of the subcontractors did not want their foremen attending the group
scheduling meetings.
"P11: 07 Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building.pdf - 11:33 [In this case, during
construct..] (6:2097-6:2280) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [manage]
In this case, during construction the owner’s project manager was distracted with another, more
troublesome project and the team felt that this might have slowed decision-making.

Not Given
There is no quotation under this category.

283

Project 8
General Information
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:1 [Cardinal Glennon
Children’s Ho..] (1:156-1:209) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital Expansion
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:3 [Healthcare] (2:226-2:235)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Healthcare
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:7 [SSM Healthcare assembled
a tea..] (2:439-2:652) (Super)
Codes: [Project Cost ] [Project Size]
SSM Healthcare assembled a team including the architect Christner Inc., MEP engineer McGrath
Inc., and builder Alberici to design and build a 138,000 square foot, $45.5 million children’s
hospital expansion.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:7 [SSM Healthcare assembled
a tea..] (2:439-2:652) (Super)
Codes: [Project Cost] [Project Size]
SSM Healthcare assembled a team including the architect Christner Inc., MEP engineer McGrath
Inc., and builder Alberici to design and build a 138,000 square foot, $45.5 million children’s
hospital expansion.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:2 [St. Louis, Missouri]
(2:198-2:216) (Super)
Codes: [Location]
St. Louis, Missouri
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:4 [Multi-party contract]
(2:249-2:268) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Multi-party contract
P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:15 [Custom contract based on
Sutte..] (3:1102-3:1178) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Custom contract based on Sutter’s Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA)
P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:16 [The contract also ties
prime t..] (3:1450-3:1604) (Super)
Codes: [Contract] [Reward Structure-risk pool]

284

The contract also ties prime trade contractors, including the ceiling framing and finish, and fire
protection, using a “Lean Pool” or risk/reward pool.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:5 [2004] (2:376-2:379)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
2004
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:6 [2007] (2:398-2:401)
(Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
2007
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:8 [SSM Healthcare’s
Executive Dir..] (2:851-2:1056) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
SSM Healthcare’s Executive Director of Design and Construction, Donald E. Wojtkowski, who
first learned of IPD and lean construction by attending the Sutter Lean Summit in 2004, initiated
this event.

Positive
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:28 [Christner , McGrath and
Alberi..] (4:1849-4:2074) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
Christner , McGrath and Alberici had prior working relationships with SSM and with each other.
Christner had designed the Phase I bed tower for the hospital. Structural engineering was
provided by Christner’s consultant.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:13 [Risk Management This
was one o..] (3:316-3:609) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
Risk Management: This was one of the primary motivations for SSM Healthcare to more
towards a collaborative delivery method. They felt strongly that traditional design-bid-build
models too often result in risk shifting between contracting parties and felt IPD would help
eliminate this.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:14 [Technical Complexity
This proj..] (3:613-3:775) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
Technical Complexity: This project had a high level of technical complexity. All parties seemed
to agree that IPD is well suited for large, complex projects.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:21 [With respect to incentive
pool..] (3:3035-3:3481) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]

285

With respect to incentive pools, attorney Will Lichtig observes, “There will always be carrots
and sticks in the way we deliver projects. We can’t always be smart enough to know that what
we offer as a carrot or a stick will not have unintended consequences. We want to make sure that
whatever economic system we put in place will not prevent a person from always doing what is
best for the project and not any individual participant.”
P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:20 [“Lean Partners” (parties
insid..] (3:2756-3:3015) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
“Lean Partners” (parties inside the risk pool) included the architect and contractor, but also
extended to included MEP, wall and ceiling framing and finish, and fire protection
subcontractors. Smaller pieces of the work were bid out with fixed prices.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:32 [The team structure and
decisio..] (5:448-5:690) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Trust]
The team structure and decision making process was set up to be collaborative and transparent
between the primary project participants, which provided a great deal of flexibility while
working towards the best decisions for the project.
P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:35 [One major challenge that
arose..] (5:1536-5:2419) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Manage] [Problem Addressed]
One major challenge that arose during construction was effectively managed by leveraging the
flexibility provided by open, transparent, and cooperative management. After the first elevated
floor deck was in place, the field crew discovered a serious conflict between rebar in the flat slab
and plumbing sleeves that needed to penetrate the slab to serve the NICU rooms. In the course of
a “huddle” aimed at finding a solution it was realized that the conflict could be avoided by
shifting the entire plan 3 ½” with respect to the column grid. “How likely are architects and
engineers going to volunteer to make that kind of design change in the middle of construction?”
asks Tom Van Landingham. But because the designers were incentivized to be part of the larger
team they were able to make the necessary design and coordination changes in just three days.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:25 [The IFOA established an
IPD Fi..] (4:429-4:1275) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The IFOA established an IPD Field team and a Core Team to manage the project. The Field
Team brought together a rolling cast of mid-level project participants at frequent intervals to
resolve routine issues. The Core Team, made up of the owner, architect, engineer, and builder,
plus the ”lean partners” who had a stake in the incentive pool, met weekly to resolve issues and
make most decisions, (also see Decision Making). Above the Core Team level, however,
decisions were made by the owner’s management team at their discretion, albeit infrequently
and with great restraint. Christner’s Tom Van Landingham felt that the Core Team was highly
motivated to find the optimum solution for the project. “We supported each other and looked out
for each other. ‘I win-you lose’ was not an acceptable outcome for this project.”

286

P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:35 [One major challenge that
arose..] (5:1536-5:2419) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Manage] [Problem Addressed]
One major challenge that arose during construction was effectively managed by leveraging the
flexibility provided by open, transparent, and cooperative management. After the first elevated
floor deck was in place, the field crew discovered a serious conflict between rebar in the flat slab
and plumbing sleeves that needed to penetrate the slab to serve the NICU rooms. In the course of
a “huddle” aimed at finding a solution it was realized that the conflict could be avoided by
shifting the entire plan 3 ½” with respect to the column grid. “How likely are architects and
engineers going to volunteer to make that kind of design change in the middle of construction?”
asks Tom Van Landingham. But because the designers were incentivized to be part of the larger
team they were able to make the necessary design and coordination changes in just three days.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:33 [An example of how this
collabo..] (5:695-5:1531) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Negotiate]
An example of how this collaborative decision making process worked came up during concrete
placement. The builder proposed that concrete maturity testing (CMT) be used to measure
strength as opposed to the traditional method of successively testing cylinder samples. With
CMT, sensors are embedded in the concrete and data is read from the outside. The advantage is
that forms can be stripped earlier and time saved. Although this technique has long been used for
pavement testing, it was a relatively new concept in structural concrete. Owner, architect,
structural engineer, and builder discussed it, weighed the benefits and risks and ultimately
decided against it. As Tim Gunn of Alberici said, “With this process, it’s important to reach
consensus. You just can’t push people beyond their comfort level.”
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:35 [One major challenge that
arose..] (5:1536-5:2419) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Manage] [Problem Addressed]
One major challenge that arose during construction was effectively managed by leveraging the
flexibility provided by open, transparent, and cooperative management. After the first elevated
floor deck was in place, the field crew discovered a serious conflict between rebar in the flat slab
and plumbing sleeves that needed to penetrate the slab to serve the NICU rooms. In the course of
a “huddle” aimed at finding a solution it was realized that the conflict could be avoided by
shifting the entire plan 3 ½” with respect to the column grid. “How likely are architects and
engineers going to volunteer to make that kind of design change in the middle of construction?”
asks Tom Van Landingham. But because the designers were incentivized to be part of the larger
team they were able to make the necessary design and coordination changes in just three days.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:38 [In the end, the project was
oc..] (5:2420-5:2489) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Schedule Growth]
In the end, the project was occupied six weeks earlier than planned.

287

Neutral
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:29 [Lean processes were
applied an..] (4:3052-4:3195) (Super)
Codes: [Training]
Lean processes were applied and the Lean Construction Institute (LCI) institute participated in a
2 day planning event early in the project.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:10 [Market Position SSM
Healthcare..] (2:1985-2:2474) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market PositionSSM Healthcare develops, owns, and operates many large-scale facilities and
therefore had a short and long term incentive to improve the delivery process in their region.
SSM Healthcare’s Executive Director of Design and Construction, Donald E. Wojtkowski, who
first learned of IPD and lean by attending the Sutter Lean Summit in 2004, brought the lessons
back to their region and began educating their local industry partners to improve their market
options.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:16 [The contract also ties
prime t..] (3:1450-3:1604) (Super)
Codes: [Contract] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
The contract also ties prime trade contractors, including the ceiling framing and finish, and fire
protection, using a “Lean Pool” or risk/reward pool.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:26 [Above the Core Team
level, how..] (4:867-4:1023) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
The Core Team, made up of the owner, architect, engineer, and builder, plus the ”lean partners”
who had a stake in the incentive pool, met weekly to resolve issues and make most decisions,
(also see Decision Making).Above the Core Team level, however, decisions were made by the
owner’s management team at their discretion, albeit infrequently and with great restraint.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:31 [All books with regard to
the p..] (5:382-5:427) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
All books with regard to the project were open
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:30 [This project started using
a t..] (5:175-5:363) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement] [Early involvement Effectiveness]
This project started using a traditional delivery method, however all of the major players had
previous working relationships and the primary contractor was selected early in design.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:24 [Champion • Owner –
SSM Healthc..] (4:312-4:426) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Champion

288

•
•
•
•

Owner – SSM HealthcareTeam Structure
Owner’s Management Team
Core Team
IPD Field Team

Negative
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:27 [This was the first IPD
experie..] (4:1647-4:1731) (Super)
Codes: [Owner] [General Contractor] [Architect]
This was the first IPD experience for owner, architect, MEP engineer and builder.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:27 [This was the first IPD
experie..] (4:1647-4:1731) (Super)
Codes: [Owner] [General Contractor] [Architect]
This was the first IPD experience for owner, architect, MEP engineer and builder.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:27 [This was the first IPD
experie..] (4:1647-4:1731) (Super)
Codes: [Owner] [General Contractor] [Architect]
This was the first IPD experience for owner, architect, MEP engineer and builder.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:11 [Cost Predictability IPD
was im..] (2:2478-2:2629) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]
Cost Predictability
IPD was implemented after the budget was set and therefore this was not a primary motivator for
SSM to implement IPD and Lean.
P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:12 [Schedule Predictability
IPD wa..] (3:156-3:313) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule PredictabilityIPD was implemented after the schedule was set and therefore this was
not a primary motivator for SSM to implement IPD and Lean.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:22 [There was not a “no-sue”
claus..] (4:167-4:209) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
There was not a “no-sue” clause in the IFOA
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:23 [Insurance Each party
carried t..] (4:213-4:297) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
Insurance Each party carried typical general and professional liability insurance.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:19 [Goals The budget and
scope had..] (3:2514-3:2739) (Super)

289

Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
Goals
The budget and scope had been established by the same project team as part of an earlier campus
master plan. Since IPD was implemented after the project was well into design, this criterion
does not strictly apply
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:37 [BIM was not used
extensively i..] (5:2856-5:2894) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
BIM was not used extensively in design.
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:17 [The owner felt that
“relationa..] (3:2169-3:2462) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
The owner felt that “relational” contracts based on the Sutter model try too hard to dictate
behavior. SSM felt that similar results could be achieved through the use of standard contracts
but with addendums spelling out expectations with regard to collaboration and lean
methodologies.

Not Given
"P12: 08 Cardinal Glennon Childrens Hospital Expansion.pdf - 12:36 [Information Sharing No
informa..] (5:2803-5:2848) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Patterns]
Information Sharing: No information available.

290

Project 9
General Information
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:1 [St. Clare Health Center] (1:119-1:143) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
St. Clare Health Center
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:3 [Healthcare] (2:186-2:195) (Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Healthcare
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:10 [The project is comprised of a ..] (2:1686-2:1871)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Size]
The project is comprised of a 430,000 square foot six-story, 154-bed inpatient tower, an 85,000
square foot medical office building, and a 75,000 square foot ambulatory care center.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:6 [In 2005, SSM Healthcare assemb..] (2:334-2:573)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Cost]
In 2005, SSM Healthcare assembled a team of architect, HGA, and contractor, Alberici, to
implement IPD and lean construction on their St. Clare Health Center in Fenton, Missouri; a
$157 million replacement hospital and medical campus.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:2 [Fenton, Missouri] (2:161-2:176) (Super)
Codes: [Location]
Fenton, Missouri
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:17 [Contract Type • Custom tri-par..] (3:1996-3:2045)
(Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Contract Type
• Custom tri-party based on IFOA
P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:18 [By contract, each party is hel..] (3:2274-3:2632)
(Super)
Codes: [Contract]
By contract, each party is held accountable to the others as equal partners. Architect and builder
combine their contingencies and are jointly responsible for construction errors and design
omissions. “Lean partners,” i.e. subcontractors within the shared risk/reward circle, included
MEP, wall and ceiling framing and finish, and fire protection.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:4 [2005] (2:306-2:309) (Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
2005
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:5 [2009] (2:328-2:331) (Super)

291

Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
2009
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:44 [After having some success with..] (2:1077-2:1245)
(Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
After having some success with IPD and Lean on the Cardinal Glennon project, SSM decided to
implement IPD and lean construction from the beginning with St. Clare.

Positive
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:7 [This project just followed the..] (2:575-2:849)
(Super)
Codes: [General Contractor] [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
This project just followed the completion of SSM’s Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, on
which SSM and Alberici tested the implementation of IPD and lean strategies, albeit late into the
project (see Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital Case Study for details.)
P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:8 [This was SSM’s and Alberici’s ..] (2:1403-2:1587)
(Super)
Codes: [Architect] [General Contractor] [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
This was SSM’s and Alberici’s first IPD project from conception. HGA had prior IPD
experience with Sutter Health in California, but the process was new to HGA’s Milwaukee
office."
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:7 [This project just followed the..] (2:575-2:849)
(Super)
Codes: [General Contractor] [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
This project just followed the completion of SSM’s Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, on
which SSM and Alberici tested the implementation of IPD and lean strategies, albeit late into the
project (see Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital Case Study for details.)
P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:8 [This was SSM’s and Alberici’s ..] (2:1403-2:1587)
(Super)
Codes: [Architect] [General Contractor] [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
This was SSM’s and Alberici’s first IPD project from conception. HGA had prior IPD
experience with Sutter Health in California, but the process was new to HGA’s Milwaukee office.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:12 [SSM Healthcare’s Executive Dir..] (3:235-3:533)
(Super)
Codes: [Training]
SSM Healthcare’s Executive Director of Design and Construction, Donald E. Wojtkowski, who
first learned of IPD and lean by attending the Sutter Lean Summit in 2004, brought the lessons
back to their region and began educating their local industry partners to improve their market
options.

292

P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:31 [The Lean Construction Institut..] (5:1132-5:1313)
(Super)
Codes: [Training]
The Lean Construction Institute (LCI) played a significant role in implementing lean
construction tools, such as the Last Planner System, on the project from the very beginning.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:11 [Market Position SSM Healthcare..] (2:2606-3:234)
(Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market PositionSSM Healthcare develops, owns, and operates many large-scale facilities and
therefore had both short and long term incentives to improve the delivery process in their region.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:15 [Risk Management This was one o..] (3:10693:1363) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk] [Strong motivators]
Risk Management: This was one of the primary motivations for SSM Healthcare to move
towards a collaborative delivery method. They felt strongly that traditional design-bid-build
models too often result in risk shifting between contracting parties and felt IPD would help
eliminate this.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:16 [Technical Complexity This was ..] (3:1366-3:1689)
(Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
Technical Complexity: This was one of SSM’s primary motivations for moving towards IPD.
They prioritized incentives that would shift the team’s behavior and optimize team performance
in order to achieve high quality in a complex project. All parties seem to agree that IPD is best
suited for large, complex projects.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:15 [Risk Management This was one o..] (3:10693:1363) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk] [Strong motivators]
Risk Management: This was one of the primary motivations for SSM Healthcare to move
towards a collaborative delivery method. They felt strongly that traditional design-bid-build
models too often result in risk shifting between contracting parties and felt IPD would help
eliminate this.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:34 [The core team of SSM, Alberici..] (5:1335-5:2262)
(Super)
Codes: [Negotiate] [Remove Obstacles]
The core team of SSM, Alberici, and HGA was in place at the start of the project. At the same
time, a program manager was also engaged. The program manager, who was not familiar with
IPD, advised SSM to establish a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) as soon as possible, and
push the risk of cost overruns on to the builder and architect. He advocated using standard,
separate design and construction contracts but with addendums mandating a lean construction
process. HGA objected. Based on the experience in California, IPD had to be implemented in
full for the process to work. “You could not cherry-pick some items and leave out others,” said

293

Kurt Spiering, HGA’s principal in charge, “we’re either going to use the whole agreement or
none of the agreement.” Alberici seconded the motion, and SSM subsequently agreed to move
forward with an integrated form of agreement and without a program manager.
P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:45 [At the beginning, SSM felt tha..] (4:269-4:1134)
(Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
At the beginning, SSM felt that this project, with its significant scope, had to have an enforceable
GMP. As noted in the goals section, the budget for the project had been set by a program
manager prior to the engagement of HGA and Alberici. When the architect and builder began
their work it quickly became clear that the budget did not match SSM’s aspirations for the
project. The owner was willing to defer the setting of GMP until the design was substantially
complete and subcontractors were comfortable enough with their prices that they could eliminate
most contingencies. But when all the subtrades’ GMPs were totaled, the sum exceeded the
overall budget. In the end no GMP was set, the architects and builders worked collaboratively to
hold down costs but were not required to hold to a fixed price and were paid cost plus a fee.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:29 [A tiered decision making struc..] (4:2161-4:2747)
(Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
A tiered decision making structure was established by the IFOA. The IPD Field Team, which
included all participants active at a given time, met daily to review routine matters. The Core
Team, with senior representation of the owner, architect, engineers, and builder, met weekly to
collaboratively discuss issues and make the more difficult decisions. A senior Leadership Team
convened monthly to resolve issues when consensus could not be reached in the Core Team. The
Leadership Team included representatives of the interested parties - including SSM, Alberici and
HGA.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:42 [This project utilized BIM (3D ..] (6:2789-6:2929)
(Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
This project utilized BIM (3D Architectural Desktop), a web enabled project management site,
and a “Big Room.” See also Workplace and BIM
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:43 [BIM was used extensively, not ..] (6:2938-6:4053)
(Super)
Codes: [BIM]
BIM was used extensively, not only to detect clashes between systems but also to increase the
proportion of prefabricated assemblies with their greater tolerances and lower requirement for
field labor.
Utilizing the “Big Room” and early involvement of trade contractors improved the efficiency
and accuracy of the design process. Kevin Kerschbaum, HGA’s project manager said “We could
have drawn it all but we wouldn’t have known if there needed to be a joint here or a piece of
unistrut there. You have a much higher degree of certainty that things will fit when the actual
fabricator is doing the modeling. Everything should be drawn and detailed by the right person at
the right time and then put together into the overall model.” Virtually all systems including

294

power, low voltage, lighting, mechanical and fire protection were modeled in detail. The owner
felt that it was unnecessary to model every pipe and conduit, and that in the future, modeling
should be limited to major systems. But he did acknowledge that he was left with “one heck of a
good set of as-builts.”
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:33 [The core team of SSM, Alberici..] (5:1335-5:1417)
(Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
The core team of SSM, Alberici, and HGA was in place at the start of the project.
P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:35 [The mechanical, electrical, an..] (5:2264-5:2419)
(Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
The mechanical, electrical, and fire protection subcontractors were contracted to Alberici and
signed joining agreements prior to the start of design.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:32 [Kevin Kerschbaum of HGA, who h..] (5:4515:1113) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
Kevin Kerschbaum of HGA, who has now worked on several IPD projects, feels that
architectural work hours can be taken from the construction administration phase and shifted to
schematic design. “There is an intense amount of work required of the designers at the beginning
of the process but the time needed during construction to review RFIs, submittals, and
substitutions is greatly reduced.” There is no longer a defined “bidding/negotiation phase” so that
time gets pulled forward as well. Kerschbaum learned that during construction more time is freed
to actually spend on the job site and much less “busy work” is required in the office.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:39 [One of the issues in hospital ..] (5:3932-6:867)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Problem Addressed]
One of the issues in hospital design is that, although designers and builders want owners to make
decisions and stick with them, hospital operators always want their buildings to have the very
latest in equipment and reflect the most up to date thinking in hospital operations and patient care.
“There’s always the desire to defer those decisions in case the next generation of cath lab or MRI
or articulated arm in the operating room is coming down the road,” said Wojtkowski.
At St. Clare, the owner decided to switch from back-to-back patient rooms to same-handed
rooms even as structural steel was being erected. This decision came from studies showing that
same-handed rooms promote operational efficiency and reduce the likelihood of medication
errors. It was decided to make the change even though it increased cost. Such a major change so
late in the process would have been extremely difficult for a traditional, fragmented design and
construction team to handle efficiently, but the integrated team (see Early Involvement) was able
to meet the owner’s wishes because of its inherent flexibility. The change was made without a
major impact on cost or schedule. Tim Gunn of Alberici said “We like the ability to let the owner
wait until the last responsible minute to make a decision, and sometimes even beyond that.”

295

"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:34 [The core team of SSM, Alberici..] (5:1335-5:2262)
(Super)
Codes: [Negotiate] [Remove Obstacles]
The core team of SSM, Alberici, and HGA was in place at the start of the project. At the same
time, a program manager was also engaged. The program manager, who was not familiar with
IPD, advised SSM to establish a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) as soon as possible, and
push the risk of cost overruns on to the builder and architect. He advocated using standard,
separate design and construction contracts but with addendums mandating a lean construction
process. HGA objected. Based on the experience in California, IPD had to be implemented in
full for the process to work. “You could not cherry-pick some items and leave out others,” said
Kurt Spiering, HGA’s principal in charge, “we’re either going to use the whole agreement or
none of the agreement.” Alberici seconded the motion, and SSM subsequently agreed to move
forward with an integrated form of agreement and without a program manager.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:39 [One of the issues in hospital ..] (5:3932-6:867)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Problem Addressed]
One of the issues in hospital design is that, although designers and builders want owners to make
decisions and stick with them, hospital operators always want their buildings to have the very
latest in equipment and reflect the most up to date thinking in hospital operations and patient care.
“There’s always the desire to defer those decisions in case the next generation of cath lab or MRI
or articulated arm in the operating room is coming down the road,” said Wojtkowski.
At St. Clare, the owner decided to switch from back-to-back patient rooms to same-handed
rooms even as structural steel was being erected. This decision came from studies showing that
same-handed rooms promote operational efficiency and reduce the likelihood of medication
errors. It was decided to make the change even though it increased cost. Such a major change so
late in the process would have been extremely difficult for a traditional, fragmented design and
construction team to handle efficiently, but the integrated team (see Early Involvement) was able
to meet the owner’s wishes because of its inherent flexibility. The change was made without a
major impact on cost or schedule. Tim Gunn of Alberici said “We like the ability to let the owner
wait until the last responsible minute to make a decision, and sometimes even beyond that.”

Neutral
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:24 [In the end no GMP was set, the..] (4:954-4:1263)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
In the end no GMP was set, the architects and builders worked collaboratively to hold down
costs but were not required to hold to a fixed price and were paid cost plus a fee. Because the
builders’ risk was thereby almost eliminated, financial incentives were not deemed by the owner
to be necessary.
P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:25 [The owner learned from an earl..] (4:1268-4:1903)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
The owner learned from an earlier project, Cardinal Glennon, that a release from GMP was
preferred by the builders over financial incentives. Donald E. Wojtkowski, SSM Healthcare’s

296

Executive Director of Design and Construction, said “The only way you’re going to get the
complex design and construction resources needed for a project like St. Clare, to get them to
change their behavior, is to remove financial risk. Whenever you have a GMP or stipulated sum,
if you need to deviate from the schedule for the good of the project, you’re going to get a change
order and be arguing about it for the rest of the project.”
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:21 [Besides schedule and budget, p..] (3:3336-3:3556)
(Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
Besides schedule and budget, project goals included improved operational productivity. Specific
metrics were not set, but the team was tasked with improving efficiency through design to the
greatest extent possible.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:38 [Transparency Books were open a..] (5:38715:3912) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
Transparency Books were open and audited.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:30 [Advisors were brought in to he..] (5:292-5:446)
(Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System]
Advisors were brought in to help implement the Last Planner system, a construction planning
methodology developed by the Lean Construction Institute.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:41 [Each contracting party did the..] (6:1491-6:2764)
(Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
Each contracting party did their work in their respective offices and would be brought together
periodically in a co-located room, or “Big Room,” for coordination and detailing in 3D.
The process worked like this; a local MEP consulting engineering firm, KJWW, working under
the direction of HGA, developed 2D single line diagrams showing duct sizes and locations as
well as performance specs. At the same time HGA was developing architectural and structural
designs in their Milwaukee office with early input from the builders. Then all of this material
was taken to the “Big Room” where the architects and engineers could collaborate with the
design-build MEP detailers to model the design in real time and in 3D using Architectural
Desktop.
The “Big Room” was a triple-wide trailer set up on the site and was augmented with a project
management web site used to share design progress with team members who could not
physically be present. Tim Gunn, Alberici’s Project Director said, “it was the first time for
everyone with this kind of a process. Some things went more smoothly than others. But all the
time spent up front in the ‘Big Room’ was more than paid back later with substantially fewer
coordination errors and RFIs.”
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:9 [HGA had prior IPD experience w..] (2:1470-2:1683)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]

297

Over time, however, the Milwaukee office became more comfortable with this new way of
working.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:28 [Champion • Owner-SSM Healthcar..] (4:20524:2158) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Champion
• Owner-SSM Healthcare
Team Structure
• Senior Leadership Team, Core Team, IPD Field Team
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:23 [The owner thought the process ..] (3:3794-4:252)
(Super)
Codes: [Commitment to IPD process]
The owner thought the process works very well for large and complex projects but is perhaps not
needed for smaller (under $5 million) projects, in part because SSM tends to assign those
projects to smaller builders, new firms, or firms without broad experience in healthcare

Negative
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:8 [This was SSM’s and Alberici’s ..] (2:1403-2:1587)
(Super)
Codes: [Architect] [General Contractor] [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
This was SSM’s and Alberici’s first IPD project from conception. HGA had prior IPD
experience with Sutter Health in California, but the process was new to HGA’s Milwaukee office.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:13 [Cost Predictability The budget..] (3:536-3:697)
(Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]
Cost Predictability: The budget appeared to be flexible and therefore cost predictability was not
the primary reason for selecting IPD as the delivery method.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:20 [In this case the initial budge..] (3:3051-3:3331)
(Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
In this case the initial budget was established by a program manager without the involvement of
architect and builder. Because this initial budget was not jointly validated, the owner had to
supplement it with additional funds to satisfy programmatic goals for the project.
P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:22 [Had the budget and program bee..] (3:3559-3:3792)
(Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
Had the budget and program been collaboratively set between owner, architect, and builder at the
beginning, it would likely have not been necessary to go “back to the well” for additional funds
to square the budget with program.

298

"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:19 [The owner felt that “relationa..] (3:2726-3:2830)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
The owner felt that “relational” contracts based on the Sutter model try too hard to dictate
behavior.
P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:40 [Most of our problems came from..] (6:880-6:1444)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Most of our problems came from design-build subcontractors not having the patience to deal
with the iterative nature of design. They want all the answers way too early,” says Wojkowski. In
this project the consulting engineers were essentially in design assist mode to the subcontractors
instead of the other way around. The owner felt this was backward. In addition, according to Tim
Gunn, “Our MEP/FP subcontractors struggled at times with conceptual estimating. They
sometimes fell back to the old counting light fixtures, counting toilets mode.”

Not Given
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:14 [Schedule Predictability No spe..] (3:989-3:1066)
(Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule Predictability: No specific information available for interpretation.
"P13: 09 St. Clare Health Center.pdf - 13:26 [Insurance No information avail..] (4:2002-4:2037)
(Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
Insurance: No information available.

299

Project 10
General Information
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:1 [Encircle Health Ambulatory Car..]
(1:114-1:155) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:3 [Healthcare] (2:184-2:193)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Healthcare
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:9 [The Encircle Health project is..]
(2:1360-2:1641) (Super)
Codes: [Project Size]
The Encircle Health project is a three-story, 156,000 square foot ambulatory care center
combining physician practices with ancillary diagnostic services, including imaging, radiology,
endoscopy, pharmacy, and testing labs, each of which own an equity stake in the building.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:6 [In 2006, Encircle Health selec..]
(2:311-2:470) (Super)
Codes: [Project Cost]
In 2006, Encircle Health selected architect, HGA, and contractor, Boldt, to design and build a
$38.6 million ambulatory care center in Appleton, Wisconsin.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:2 [Appleton, Wisconsin] (2:1562:174) (Super)
Codes: [Location]
Appleton, Wisconsin
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:11 [Contract Type • Custom Multi-P..]
(2:2408-2:2488) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Contract Type
• Custom Multi-Party Agreement based on Sutter Health IFOA
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:12 [An integrated form of agreemen..]
(2:2491-2:2835) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
An integrated form of agreement (IFOA) based on the Sutter Health model was signed by owner,
architect, and builder. Prior to the start of schematic design, four of the major subtrades-mechanical, electrical, plumbing/fire protection and exterior glazing--signed joining agreements
and participated in the financial incentives scheme.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:4 [2006] (2:283-2:286) (Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]

300

2006
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:5 [2009] (2:305-2:308) (Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
2009
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:7 [Encircle Health is somewhat un..]
(2:471-2:981) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
Encircle Health is somewhat unique in that they are an LLC, composed primarily of ThedaCare
in addition to several independent physician groups. ThedaCare, the largest tenant, is a regional
healthcare organization with considerable construction experience and a focus on lean operations
and therefore took the primary role in managing the project. They decided before selecting the
design and construction team to follow an integrated form of agreement based on the Sutter
Health contract model.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:13 [Project goals, developed colla..]
(3:356-3:563) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [LEED Certification Intended]
Project goals, developed collaboratively by the core team, included budget, schedule, and a
requirement to attain LEED Silver or higher, as mandated by ThedaCare’s system wide
sustainability initiative.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:14 [At the time of this study the ..]
(3:565-3:686) (Super)
Codes: [Sustainability] [LEED certification intended]
At the time of this study the LEED evaluation was not yet complete, but the team was confident
of achieving LEED Gold.

Positive
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:29 [The west coast offices of the ..]
(3:3796-3:3955) (Super)
Codes: [Architect] [General Contractor] [Team member IPD experience]
The west coast offices of the architect HGA, and builder, Boldt Construction, had prior IPD
experience working together with Sutter Health in California.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:29 [The west coast offices of the ..]
(3:3796-3:3955) (Super)
Codes: [Architect] [General Contractor] [Team member IPD experience]
The west coast offices of the architect HGA, and builder, Boldt Construction, had prior IPD
experience working together with Sutter Health in California.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:8 [ThedaCare, HGA and Boldt all h..]
(2:983-2:1155) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]

301

ThedaCare, HGA and Boldt all had worked together previously on projects in the Midwest,
which was a major factor when selecting the team for this new delivery method.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:30 [The three principal partners h..]
(3:3956-3:4129) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
The three principal partners had worked together previously, as did most of the major subtrades,
a factor that everyone believed contributed to the project’s success.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:32 [Mechanical, electrical, plumbi..]
(4:1051-4:1396) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
Mechanical, electrical, plumbing/fire protection, and glazing subcontractors were selected
collaboratively by the core team from a short list of three candidate firms in each category.
Selection was based on fee proposals and qualifications of committed personnel. All of the firms
considered had previous working experience with Boldt.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:22 [A scaling factor was used wher..]
(3:1958-3:2093) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
A scaling factor was used wherein the more that was saved, the higher the percentage of
compensation to the non-owner participants.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:21 [Architect and builder worked o..]
(3:1588-3:1761) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
Architect and builder worked on a time-and-materials basis at a reduced billing rate, with a
portion of anticipated profits placed at risk depending on project outcomes.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:24 [Recent iterations of the Sutte..]
(3:2750-3:3355) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
Recent iterations of the Sutter model contract use “fee pooling,” in which participants’ costs are
separated from their anticipated profit. Planned profits are placed in the “risk pool” for those
inside the IPD agreement. That way, everyone’s individual success hinges on the project’s
success. Profits are protected even when work (done at cost) is increased or decreased. Therefore
no one is hurt if work is shifted from one party to another for overall project benefit. If a $1
increase in framing cost allows a $2 savings in HVAC, no one loses the incentive to put the
project first.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:41 [RFIs were essentially limited ..]
(5:2667-5:2965) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
RFIs were essentially limited to documentation of decisions already reached in the field. This
freed the architect to be more hands-on during construction because much of the tedious

302

paperwork and tracking was eliminated. Representatives in the field were empowered to make
decisions quickly
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:13 [Project goals, developed colla..]
(3:356-3:563) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [LEED Certification Intended]
Project goals, developed collaboratively by the core team, included budget, schedule, and a
requirement to attain LEED Silver or higher, as mandated by ThedaCare’s system wide
sustainability initiative.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:45 [In addition to BIM, Boldt main..]
(6:174-6:281) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
In addition to BIM, Boldt maintained a project web site for information exchange open to all
participants.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:37 [The project team operated in a..]
(5:623-5:820) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
The project team operated in a very transparent manner with cost information available for
designers to make better design decisions early on, (see also Early Involvement and Decision
Making).
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:46 [The primary computer model
was..] (6:289-6:1271) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
The primary computer model was held by Boldt. Each systems subcontractor used its own
preferred software platform, which in the case of the sheet metal subcontractor, was used to
directly drive CNC fabrication equipment. Navisworks was used extensively and interactively to
detect clashes between systems. By modeling everything, there was a much higher assurance that
things would fit and therefore tighter tolerances were possible. Instead of a laborious shop
drawing review process, the subcontractors were able to model their own work and build it.
Trent Jezwinski , Boldt’s project manager said “The money spent on building and maintaining
the BIM was more than offset by less rework caused by coordination errors.“
In some cases, the scheduling of trades such as fire protection had to be adjusted because things
were happening so much faster than usual. Boldt has indicated that it will adjust its scheduling
practices to suit this new process.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:20 [The harsh weather affected the..]
(3:1108-3:1393) (Super)
Codes: [Other Tools] [Culture Fit]
The harsh weather affected the typical sequencing of trades, but due to the just-in-time design
process and close collaboration between architect and builder, the architects could fluidly shift
effort to provide the design information needed in the field (see Decision Making).

303

P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:33 [Just-in-time design meant some..]
(4:2018-4:2525) (Super)
Codes: [Other Tools]
Just-in-time design meant some aspects of the project were still in sketch mode while others
were already under construction. There was no traditional SD-DD-CD issuance of design
packages. Delivery of design documents was continuous and directed at what the team felt most
needed attention at a particular moment in the process. In addition, the severe weather during
much of construction meant that the usual sequence of sub trades couldn’t be followed and the
designers were able to adjust.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:34 [Prior to the start of schemati..]
(4:2873-4:3097) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement][Reward Structure- Incentive]
Prior to the start of schematic design, four of the major sub trades--mechanical, electrical,
plumbing/fire protection and exterior glazing--signed joining agreements and participated in the
financial incentives scheme.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:17 [Furthermore, IPD leveraged the..]
(3:1396-3:1572) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
Furthermore, IPD leveraged the early involvement of trades to more efficiently design the
building systems, almost eliminating duplication of work (see Early Involvement).
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:36 [The shop drawing process becam..]
(4:4007-5:606) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
The shop drawing process became concurrent with design, saving time and duplication of effort.
Kevin Kerschbaum, HGA’s project manager said, “We drew 30% fewer window details, for
example, because the curtain wall subcontractor was involved from the get-go and their input
was incorporated in the design drawings.” Shop drawings were used for installation purposes
only. A similar situation occurred with millwork. The architect, with the fabricator by his side,
drew what was needed without having to extensively detail. In that sense, the architect could
focus purely on design while allowing the fabricators to detail exactly what they were going to
build.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:38 [During design the architects w..]
(5:1095-5:1500) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
During design the architects were given a detailed spreadsheet of unit costs. They had the
freedom to design knowing the real cost of tradeoffs between, for example, using one material
over another in a particular space. Because cost information was provided early, architects could
make design decisions based on reliable information and did not have to redesign later for value
engineering.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:40 [RFIs were essentially limited ..]
(5:2667-5:2893) (Super)

304

Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
RFIs were essentially limited to documentation of decisions already reached in the field. This
freed the architect to be more hands-on during construction because much of the tedious
paperwork and tracking was eliminated.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:23 [There was a general consensus ..]
(3:2167-3:2582) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate] [Trust]
There was a general consensus that a more precise method of distinguishing design refinements
from scope changes from contingency items was needed. Participants reported several instances
in which there was disagreement about which bucket should pay for a particular item. But in the
spirit of collaboration and feeling of trust that prevailed these were resolved with frank
discussion and give-and-take.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:20 [The harsh weather affected the..]
(3:1108-3:1393) (Super)
Codes: [Other Tools] [Culture Fit]
The harsh weather affected the typical sequencing of trades, but due to the just-in-time design
process and close collaboration between architect and builder, the architects could fluidly shift
effort to provide the design information needed in the field (see Decision Making).
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:18 [The overall schedule, as it wa..]
(3:691-3:867) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The overall schedule, as it was jointly prepared, did not change during the project, although it
was constantly and interactively adjusted in detail during weekly meetings.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:31 [A Core Team met weekly to reso..]
(4:116-4:823) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Negotiation]
A Core Team met weekly to resolve routine issues. The composition of this team varied,
sometimes including one or two of the owner/physicians, sometimes including administrators,
but always with the owner, architect and builder represented. Under the direction of the Core
Team were specialized component teams including building enclosure, MEP, interior fit-out, and
LEED compliance. The Core Team would resolve issues that arose between the component
teams on a continuing basis. Above the Core Team was the Board of Directors of the LLC, but
very few issues were passed to that level. The ability to perform to such a tight schedule required
that decisions be made and not revisited.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:35 [The design process was highly ..]
(4:3586-4:3993) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The design process was highly collaborative between designers and builders. The design-build
specialty subcontractors provided design services and acted as the engineers-of-record for their
respective disciplines. HGA and its consultants designed systems as single line diagrams plus

305

performance criteria, which the subcontractors used as a basis for their designs. All systems were
modeled in 3D
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:42 [At a defined point in the proc..]
(5:1503-5:2114) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
At a defined point in the process it was agreed that design was finished. All parties and all
stakeholders had been consulted and signed off. After that point any significant design
adjustment was considered a scope change with an impact on the target cost. Most costs were
well predicted during design, but when the inevitable small surprises happened, as materials and
smaller trades were bid, the team could easily adjust without adding to the overall cost. Only in
the rare cases when items had to be subtracted from the performance contingency did it require a
decision from the Core Team.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:39 [That inspired some out-of the-..]
(5:2305-5:2388) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge]
That inspired some out-of the-box thinking for the benefit of the overall project.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:43 [Participants at all levels ten..]
(5:2979-5:3290) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge]
Participants at all levels tended to ask questions with a range of possible solutions in mind. It
wasn’t “your design doesn’t work, fix it.” The process tended to flatten the hierarchy and put
everyone on an equal footing, which was empowering for all and a good stimulus toward
creative problem-solving.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:23 [There was a general consensus ..]
(3:2167-3:2582) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate] [Trust]
There was a general consensus that a more precise method of distinguishing design refinements
from scope changes from contingency items was needed. Participants reported several instances
in which there was disagreement about which bucket should pay for a particular item. But in the
spirit of collaboration and feeling of trust that prevailed these were resolved with frank
discussion and give-and-take.
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:31 [A Core Team met weekly to reso..]
(4:116-4:823) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Negotiation]
A Core Team met weekly to resolve routine issues. The composition of this team varied,
sometimes including one or two of the owner/physicians, sometimes including administrators,
but always with the owner, architect and builder represented. Under the direction of the Core
Team were specialized component teams including building enclosure, MEP, interior fit-out, and
LEED compliance. The Core Team would resolve issues that arose between the component
teams on a continuing basis. Above the Core Team was the Board of Directors of the LLC, but

306

very few issues were passed to that level. The ability to perform to such a tight schedule required
that decisions be made and not revisited.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:15 [The project was completed from..]
(3:868-3:1393) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
The project was completed from start to move-in in 18 months, including 13 months of
construction. During five of those months, the coldest winter in recent memory, compounded the
difficulty of achieving such a compressed schedule. The harsh weather affected the typical
sequencing of trades, but due to the just-in-time design process and close collaboration between
architect and builder, the architects could fluidly shift effort to provide the design information
needed in the field (see Decision Making).
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:48 [The overall schedule, as it wa..]
(3:691-3:1393) (Super)
Codes: [Perceived Schedule Performance]
The overall schedule, as it was jointly prepared, did not change during the project, although it
was constantly and interactively adjusted in detail during weekly meetings. The project was
completed from start to move-in in 18 months, including 13 months of construction. During five
of those months, the coldest winter in recent memory, compounded the difficulty of achieving
such a compressed schedule. The harsh weather affected the typical sequencing of trades, but due
to the just-in-time design process and close collaboration between architect and builder, the
architects could fluidly shift effort to provide the design information needed in the field (see
Decision Making).
P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:49 [In some cases, the scheduling ..]
(6:1036-6:1271) (Super)
Codes: [Perceived Schedule Performance]
In some cases, the scheduling of trades such as fire protection had to be adjusted because things
were happening so much faster than usual. Boldt has indicated that it will adjust its scheduling
practices to suit this new process.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:44 [Several of the participants di..]
(5:3585-5:4782) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Culture Fit] [Participants Satisfaction]
Several of the participants did comment that they wished the major field foremen had been more
completely integrated into the process. As a rule these field workers were the most skeptical of
the new process. But according to Jezwinski, this project ran significantly different than his past
experience thanks to the implementation of IPD culture and the Last Planner Process in the field:
“I’ve never had a job run this smooth in 23 years. There wasn’t any of that silo mentality – and
to be able to move that feeling into the construction site is huge. I’ve never seen a project work
as a team like this one did, from the top down and including the installers and guys in the field.
When you have a hand in establishing the schedule and see how your trade fits into the whole
process, you tend to believe in it and act accordingly. Slack is greatly reduced. The interactive
scheduling process showed you the logic of where everything had to go – you trusted it and had

307

ownership over it, and if you didn’t fulfill your promises you felt you had let down the team. If
you have partners who are willing to change culturally then this process could work anywhere.”

Neutral
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:34 [Prior to the start of schemati..]
(4:2873-4:3097) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement][Reward Structure- Incentive]
Prior to the start of schematic design, four of the major sub trades--mechanical, electrical,
plumbing/fire protection and exterior glazing--signed joining agreements and participated in the
financial incentives scheme.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:25 [Liability The contract did not..]
(3:3358-3:3591) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
Liability: The contract did not contain a no-sue clause. It did contain a limitation on total liability
and consequential damages for the architect and a mutual waiver of consequential damages
between the owner and the builder. "
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:44 [Several of the participants di..]
(5:3585-5:4782) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Culture Fit] [Participants Satisfaction]
Several of the participants did comment that they wished the major field foremen had been more
completely integrated into the process. As a rule these field workers were the most skeptical of
the new process. But according to Jezwinski, this project ran significantly different than his past
experience thanks to the implementation of IPD culture and the Last Planner Process in the field:
“I’ve never had a job run this smooth in 23 years. There wasn’t any of that silo mentality – and
to be able to move that feeling into the construction site is huge. I’ve never seen a project work
as a team like this one did, from the top down and including the installers and guys in the field.
When you have a hand in establishing the schedule and see how your trade fits into the whole
process, you tend to believe in it and act accordingly. Slack is greatly reduced. The interactive
scheduling process showed you the logic of where everything had to go – you trusted it and had
ownership over it, and if you didn’t fulfill your promises you felt you had let down the team. If
you have partners who are willing to change culturally then this process could work anywhere.”
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:44 [Several of the participants di..]
(5:3585-5:4782) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Culture Fit] [Participants Satisfaction]
Several of the participants did comment that they wished the major field foremen had been more
completely integrated into the process. As a rule these field workers were the most skeptical of
the new process. But according to Jezwinski, this project ran significantly different than his past
experience thanks to the implementation of IPD culture and the Last Planner Process in the field:
“I’ve never had a job run this smooth in 23 years. There wasn’t any of that silo mentality – and
to be able to move that feeling into the construction site is huge. I’ve never seen a project work
as a team like this one did, from the top down and including the installers and guys in the field.
When you have a hand in establishing the schedule and see how your trade fits into the whole
process, you tend to believe in it and act accordingly. Slack is greatly reduced. The interactive

308

scheduling process showed you the logic of where everything had to go – you trusted it and had
ownership over it, and if you didn’t fulfill your promises you felt you had let down the team. If
you have partners who are willing to change culturally then this process could work anywhere.”
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:27 [Team Structure • LLC Board of ..]
(3:3660-3:3747) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Team Structure
• LLC Board of Directors, Core Team, Specialized Component Teams

Negative
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:28 [This was the first IPD project..]
(3:3750-3:3794) (Super)
Codes: [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
This was the first IPD project for ThedaCare.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:26 [Insurance Each entity maintain..]
(3:3594-3:3645) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
Insurance: Each entity maintained typical insurance."

Not Given
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:10 [IPD Profile No information ava..]
(2:1962-2:2101) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost] [Motivator_Market] [Motivator_Risk] [Motivator_Schedule]
[Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivators]
IPD Profile: No information available on the LLC’s motivation to select IPD. There was no
mention of particular limitations or challenges.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:10 [IPD Profile No information ava..]
(2:1962-2:2101) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost] [Motivator_Market] [Motivator_Risk] [Motivator_Schedule]
[Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivators]
IPD Profile: No information available on the LLC’s motivation to select IPD. There was no
mention of particular limitations or challenges.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:10 [IPD Profile No information ava..]
(2:1962-2:2101) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost] [Motivator_Market] [Motivator_Risk] [Motivator_Schedule]
[Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivators]
IPD Profile: No information available on the LLC’s motivation to select IPD. There was no
mention of particular limitations or challenges.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:10 [IPD Profile No information ava..]
(2:1962-2:2101) (Super)

309

Codes: [Motivator_Cost] [Motivator_Market] [Motivator_Risk] [Motivator_Schedule]
[Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivators]
IPD Profile: No information available on the LLC’s motivation to select IPD. There was no
mention of particular limitations or challenges.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:10 [IPD Profile No information ava..]
(2:1962-2:2101) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost] [Motivator_Market] [Motivator_Risk] [Motivator_Schedule]
[Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivators]
IPD Profile: No information available on the LLC’s motivation to select IPD. There was no
mention of particular limitations or challenges.
"P14: 10 Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center.pdf - 14:10 [IPD Profile No information ava..]
(2:1962-2:2101) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost] [Motivator_Market] [Motivator_Risk] [Motivator_Schedule]
[Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivators]
IPD Profile: No information available on the LLC’s motivation to select IPD. There was no
mention of particular limitations or challenges.

310

Project 11
General Information
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:1 [Walter Cronkite School of Jour..]
(1:158-1:199) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
Walter Cronkite School of Journalism
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:3 [Higher Education] (2:225-2:240)
(Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Higher Education
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:2 [Phoenix, Arizona] (2:200-2:215)
(Super)
Codes: [Location]
Phoenix, Arizona
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:8 [Although the team could not en..]
(2:2730-2:3055) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Although the team could not enter into a pure tri-party IPD contract and were not able to make
changes to the City’s standard contract, the team agreed to follow IPD principles for managing
the project delivery, including strategies such as early involvement of key participants, open
books, and partial co-location.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:14 [Contract Contract Type • Desig..]
(3:2604-3:2645) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Contract Type: Design/build
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:15 [The contract was a two-way own..]
(3:2648-3:2872) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
The contract was a two-way owner/designer-builder contract as prescribed by City procurement
regulations; the contract was so inflexible that even misspellings could not be corrected without
action by the city council.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:16 [Commercial Terms As a public p..]
(3:2875-3:3108) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Commercial Terms: As a public project, the team was not able to make changes to the contract
and so the contract did not include IPD specific language. Nevertheless, many IPD features were
implemented on a non-contractual basis.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:4 [2006] (2:374-2:377) (Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]

311

2006
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:5 [2008] (2:396-2:399) (Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
2008

Positive
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:10 [Cost Predictability The projec..]
(3:916-3:1167) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost]
Cost Predictability: The project costs were tightly fixed due to the bond funding mechanism. The
promise of flexibility offered by IPD was a major factor in choosing this delivery method to
achieve the desired project within the budget constraint
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:7 [Plans based on another downtow..]
(2:848-2:1530) (Super)
Codes: [Strong motivators] [Motivator-schedule]
Plans based on another downtown site had fallen through, leaving ASU and the City with only
24 months to complete the project on a new site. The primary issue forcing an extremely tight
schedule was the “drop-dead” date for move-in prescribed by the bond measure that financed
project, which also limited the budget. The Cronkite School was expected to set a high standard
of design quality given its significance to developing ASU downtown campus and prominence
within the city. Finding an alternative project delivery method was essential to achieve the
design goals within the schedule and budget constraints; there was no time for a design-bid-build
scenario.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:11 [Schedule Predictability The bo..]
(3:1171-3:1568) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Strong motivators]
Schedule PredictabilityThe bond funding mechanism prescribed the project drop-dead date for
move-in, which created an inflexible and challenging project schedule for the level of design
quality required. Schedule predictability was therefore a primary motivation for the team to
follow IPD principles, as early involvement of key trades was one of the only ways to achieve
the schedule.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:12 [Risk Management With the sched..]
(3:1571-3:1870) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
Risk Management: With the schedule and budget constraints as well as the expectations for high
quality design, the team had an uphill battle with many potential risks. IPD was seen as an
opportunity to reduce these risks due to the collaborative nature and transparency of the IPD
philosophy.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:13 [Technical Complexity This proj..]
(3:1874-3:2307) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivators]

312

Technical Complexity: This project was critical component of ASU’s new downtown campus.
As a signature project, there were high expectations for design and program for the building,
adding another challenge to the tight budget and schedule requirements. Given this complexity,
the team felt IPD was the only way to get the right people in the rooms when decisions needed to
be made to achieve the design and program goals.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:7 [Plans based on another downtow..]
(2:848-2:1530) (Super)
Codes: [Strong motivators] [Motivator-schedule]
Plans based on another downtown site had fallen through, leaving ASU and the City with only
24 months to complete the project on a new site. The primary issue forcing an extremely tight
schedule was the “drop-dead” date for move-in prescribed by the bond measure that financed
project, which also limited the budget. The Cronkite School was expected to set a high standard
of design quality given its significance to developing ASU downtown campus and prominence
within the city. Finding an alternative project delivery method was essential to achieve the
design goals within the schedule and budget constraints; there was no time for a design-bid-build
scenario.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:11 [Schedule Predictability The bo..]
(3:1171-3:1568) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Strong motivators]
Schedule Predictability: The bond funding mechanism prescribed the project drop-dead date for
move-in, which created an inflexible and challenging project schedule for the level of design
quality required. Schedule predictability was therefore a primary motivation for the team to
follow IPD principles, as early involvement of key trades was one of the only ways to achieve
the schedule.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:13 [Technical Complexity This proj..]
(3:1874-3:2307) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivators]
Technical Complexity: This project was critical component of ASU’s new downtown campus.
As a signature project, there were high expectations for design and program for the building,
adding another challenge to the tight budget and schedule requirements. Given this complexity,
the team felt IPD was the only way to get the right people in the rooms when decisions needed to
be made to achieve the design and program goals.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:19 [The City and ASU challenged th..]
(4:705-4:954) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [Decision Making System]
The City and ASU challenged the team to give them the most they could get for the money. A
prioritized list of add-ons was agreed to. Owner, architects, and builder were able to
collaboratively decide how to spend the funds for maximum gain.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:37 [Decisions were arrived by cons..]
(5:3039-5:3276) (Super)
Codes: [Decision making system]

313

Decisions were arrived by consensus and very rarely did issues have to go to a higher authority
for resolution. This kind of collaborative, quick, and final decision-making process was key to
achieving such an aggressive schedule.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:39 [Thanks to the flexibility prov..]
(5:3365-6:367) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Early involvement effectiveness]
Thanks to the flexibility provided by early involvement, transparency and collaborative decisionmaking, several design decisions were made to optimize the project within the schedule and
budget constraints. For example, a structural and foundation system was designed that could
flexibly accommodate ongoing design refinement. The foundation may have been a bit
overdesigned, but early design enabled optimization of larger project goals. Flat, post-tensioned
slabs were used to maximize flexibility as the detailed design proceeded.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:19 [The City and ASU challenged th..]
(4:705-4:954) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [Decision Making System]
The City and ASU challenged the team to give them the most they could get for the money. A
prioritized list of add-ons was agreed to. Owner, architects, and builder were able to
collaboratively decide how to spend the funds for maximum gain.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:38 [Information Sharing Every Mond..]
(6:2201-6:2313) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Information Sharing: Every Monday the latest design ideas were published as a set of 20 or more
11”x17” sheets.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:36 [The project operated very tran..]
(5:2591-5:2861) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
The project operated very transparently with open books. Even subcontractors were required to
keep open book accounting of costs. The project participants believed that their risk was reduced
due to the completely transparent way in which the project was managed.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:40 [Mathew Chaney of Ehrlich Archi..]
(6:845-6:1361) (Super)
Codes: [Trust] [BIM]
Mathew Chaney of Ehrlich Architects pointed out they do not provide quantity take-offs on
design-bid-build projects, “but in this project it was a daily occurrence. Because of the trust
established we weren’t afraid to get involved. We were constantly using the BIM model to test
the cost of different design ideas.” Jackson concluded, “The reality is when you’re willing to
take responsibility and provide the builder with those materials quantities the end result is the
risk goes down for everybody.”
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:45 [BIM was used extensively throu..]
(6:2321-6:2793) (Super)

314

Codes: [BIM]
BIM was used extensively through programming, design and construction, but there was no
standardization of software platforms. Ehrlich had extensive experience with Revit, and
discovered in the process of program validation that it was also useful as an interactive 3D
programming tool in live user group meetings.
Ehrlich Architects began rapidly testing alternative schemes, always working in 3D, and always
with the full participation of the builders.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:46 [Navisworks was used to stitch ..]
(6:3542-6:3685) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
Navisworks was used to stitch together models created in various software packages. The
mechanical engineer led the clash-detection process.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:35 [All of the disciplines needed ..]
(5:1767-5:2055) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
All of the disciplines needed for a complete design were on board as the design process began.
The architect and contractor were selected as one team. Engineers and critical trades were also
brought on board immediately and participated in the design process, (see Firm Selection).
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:39 [Thanks to the flexibility prov..]
(5:3365-6:367) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Early involvement effectiveness]
Thanks to the flexibility provided by early involvement, transparency and collaborative decisionmaking, several design decisions were made to optimize the project within the schedule and
budget constraints. For example, a structural and foundation system was designed that could
flexibly accommodate ongoing design refinement. The foundation may have been a bit
overdesigned, but early design enabled optimization of larger project goals. Flat, post-tensioned
slabs were used to maximize flexibility as the detailed design proceeded.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:42 [A “Big Room” was set up at HDR..]
(6:1375-6:1937) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
A “Big Room” was set up at HDR’s office. Howard Shugar, HDR’s project manager said “If you
didn’t have the right people in the room you couldn’t make the decisions when they needed to be
made.” The co-location of team members helped leverage the benefits of BIM, (see BIM)
Michael Jackson, HDR principal in charge said, “Co-location works because when you work that
closely together you naturally develop a relationship of trust. When everyone is in their own
office and using email and staying at arms’ length it doesn’t allow that to happen.”
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:40 [Mathew Chaney of Ehrlich Archi..]
(6:845-6:1361) (Super)
Codes: [Trust] [BIM]
Mathew Chaney of Ehrlich Architects pointed out they do not provide quantity take-offs on
design-bid-build projects, “but in this project it was a daily occurrence. Because of the trust

315

established we weren’t afraid to get involved. We were constantly using the BIM model to test
the cost of different design ideas.” Jackson concluded, “The reality is when you’re willing to
take responsibility and provide the builder with those materials quantities the end result is the
risk goes down for everybody.”
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:43 [Michael Jackson, HDR principal..]
(6:1659-6:1937) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
Michael Jackson, HDR principal in charge said, “Co-location works because when you work that
closely together you naturally develop a relationship of trust. When everyone is in their own
office and using email and staying at arms’ length it doesn’t allow that to happen.”
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:26 [HDR and Ehrlich applied togeth..]
(4:2969-4:3112) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
HDR and Ehrlich applied together as a design team. They felt that their combined talents and
experience would be a good fit for the project.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:41 [“In order to be successful we ..]
(6:379-6:1359) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
“In order to be successful we had to change the behaviors we were used to,” said Sundt’s Terry
Abair. “If everyone had fallen back on their normal behavior we never would have gotten there.”
Compromises had to be made to accommodate the aggressive schedule. According to Michael
Jackson of HDR, “in the old fashioned relationships we’re always thinking ‘How can I shift that
risk to the other two parties’ but it’s just pushing the shells around.” Mathew Chaney of Ehrlich
Architects pointed out they do not provide quantity take-offs on design-bid-build projects, “but
in this project it was a daily occurrence. Because of the trust established we weren’t afraid to get
involved. We were constantly using the BIM model to test the cost of different design ideas.”
Jackson concluded, “The reality is when you’re willing to take responsibility and provide the
builder with those materials quantities the end result is the risk goes down for everybody
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:23 [An Executive Committee that co..]
(4:1701-4:1961) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
An Executive Committee that consisted of high-level representation of all participants and
stakeholders managed project oversight. This executive team met every other week through the
life of the project, even frequently including the Dean of Journalism.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:47 [HDR’s engineers developed sing..]
(6:3189-6:3540) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
HDR’s engineers developed single-line diagrams of systems, which were turned over to
subcontractors for detailed modeling. The transition from consulting engineers to design-build
subcontractors was almost completely seamless. The two sets of engineers sat across from each
other in the Big Room and designed collaboratively, (see Workplace).

316

"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:44 [As a result of the success of ..]
(6:2081-6:2198) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment to IPD process]
As a result of the success of this project HDR has built out a new space in its office specifically
for co-location.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:51 [In the end, efficiencies achie..]
(4:957-4:1141) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Cost Growth]
In the end, efficiencies achieved during construction and buyout, allowed the entire program to
be achieved and all the space to be finished without touching the extra $2 million.

Neutral
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:6 [The two firms had previously p..]
(2:2216-2:2371) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
The two firms had previously pursued work together but never landed a job, although key
individuals at HDR and Sundt had prior working relationships.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:21 [Liability The standard City of..]
(4:1394-4:1543) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
Liability: The standard City of Phoenix contract contained a limitation of consequential
damages provision but there was not a “no-sue” clause.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:50 [Most participants felt that so..]
(5:1509-5:1744) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles] [Lean Construction Tools]
Most participants felt that some of the lean construction thinking is doctrinaire and inflexible.
While this indicates that lean processes were used, there is no specific information as to exactly
what or how this was implemented.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:25 [Teams were selected on the bas..]
(4:2804-4:2964) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Teams were selected on the basis of familiarity with the project type, experience working with
public agencies, and the prospect of working well together.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:28 [Sundt chose its subcontractors..]
(5:217-5:348) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Sundt chose its subcontractors in a qualifications-based process, agreeing to fixed fees but with
open book accounting of costs.

317

P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:32 [Participants felt that design-..]
(5:1175-5:1490) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Participants felt that design-build subcontractors are typically uncomfortable with the uncertainty
and sometimes chaotic nature of early design and the iterative process that designers must follow
to arrive at an appropriate solution. All felt this could be overcome with additional training and
experience.

Negative
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:33 [The team felt that although a ..]
(5:897-5:1490) (Super)
Codes: [Training]
The team felt that although a hurry-up schedule can often be a productivity advantage, in this
case another month would have been very useful. There was not enough time up front to engage
in the kind of team-building that is needed in such an intense collaboration.
Participants felt that design-build subcontractors are typically uncomfortable with the uncertainty
and sometimes chaotic nature of early design and the iterative process that designers must follow
to arrive at an appropriate solution. All felt this could be overcome with additional training and
experience.
P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:48 [When design began, Ehrlich was..]
(6:3705-6:4076) (Super)
Codes: [Training]
When design began, Ehrlich was working in Revit. HDR, which at the time was still using
Architectural Desktop, determined that there was insufficient time to train their personnel on new
software. Translating the models back and forth turned out to be a cumbersome and problematic
process and a major inefficiency. HDR has since transitioned completely to Revit.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:9 [Market Position This was not a..]
(3:437-3:509) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market Position: This was not a primary motivation for ASU and the City.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:20 [Risk/Reward The project was ob..]
(4:1144-4:1391) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
Risk/Reward: The project was obliged to follow the standard City of Phoenix design-build
contract, which did not allow for a shared “pain and gain” mechanism. Money saved through
efficiencies was put back into the project for value-add items.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:20 [Risk/Reward The project was ob..]
(4:1144-4:1391) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Reward Structure-risk pool]
Risk/Reward: The project was obliged to follow the standard City of Phoenix design-build
contract, which did not allow for a shared “pain and gain” mechanism. Money saved through
efficiencies was put back into the project for value-add items.

318

"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:50 [Most participants felt that so..]
(5:1509-5:1744) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles] [Lean Construction Tools]
Most participants felt that some of the lean construction thinking is doctrinaire and inflexible.
While this indicates that lean processes were used, there is no specific information as to exactly
what or how this was implemented.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:49 [Building erection had to begin..]
(6:4081-6:4451) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [BIM]
Building erection had to begin before all systems were fully designed. Full BIM coordination
was not possible until the 3rd floor was in place, and because old-fashioned paper-based
coordination had to be used some rework on lower floors was necessary. Sundt now requires its
major subcontractors to model their systems in 3D as a condition of working together.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:24 [According to Michael Jackson o..]
(4:2190-4:2412) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
According to Michael Jackson of HDR, “owners are not used to the level of commitment of
taking responsibility equally with architects and builders and accepting some risk themselves.
The owner has to be at the table.”
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:49 [Building erection had to begin..]
(6:4081-6:4451) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [BIM]
Building erection had to begin before all systems were fully designed. Full BIM coordination
was not possible until the 3rd floor was in place, and because old-fashioned paper-based
coordination had to be used some rework on lower floors was necessary. Sundt now requires its
major subcontractors to model their systems in 3D as a condition of working together.

Not Given
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:30 [it is unclear if any of the en..]
(5:801-5:877) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience]
it is unclear if any of the entities involved had previous IPD experience.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:30 [it is unclear if any of the en..]
(5:801-5:877) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience]
it is unclear if any of the entities involved had previous IPD experience.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:30 [it is unclear if any of the en..]
(5:801-5:877) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience]

319

it is unclear if any of the entities involved had previous IPD experience.
"P15: 11 Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.pdf - 15:22 [Insurance No information avail..]
(4:1546-4:1581) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
Insurance: No information available.

320

Project 12
General Information
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:1 [USCF Mission Bay Medical Cente..]
(1:166-1:200) (Super)
Codes: [Project Name]
USCF Mission Bay Medical Center
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:3 [Hospital] (2:234-2:241) (Super)
Codes: [Project Type]
Hospital
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:7 [At $1.5 billion there are thre..] (2:6462:757) (Super)
Codes: [Project Cost]
At $1.5 billion there are three buildings: the main hospital, an outpatient building, and an energy
center.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:2 [San Francisco, CA] (2:208-2:224)
(Super)
Codes: [Location]
San Francisco, CA
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:4 [Multiple Independent Contracts..]
(2:255-2:284) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Multiple Independent Contracts
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:19 [Contract Type • Multiple indep..]
(3:3208-3:3573) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
Contract Type
• Multiple independent contractsContract Issued
• Architect – Standard Architectural contract, issued January 2007
• Prime – GMP Phase 1-Preconstruction Services Contract, issued August 2008
• Design Assist Subs – DA services, issued March 2009 under the CM
• Construction contract-GMP Phase 2- awarded late 2011
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:20 [The UC system has not adopted ..]
(3:3576-3:4425) (Super)
Codes: [Contract]
The UC system has not adopted multi-party agreements and so this project uses a traditional
contract structure. The architects were contracted with UCSF using their standard contract
providing design services.
The Contractor was under a GMP contract with the owner. This contract referenced collaborative
behavior, but did not extensively define those expectations. Contracted under the Contractor
were several major subs including MEP, concrete, and drywall. They were brought on shortly

321

after the Contractor was contracted to provide design assist (DA) services. The DA contracts
included detailed descriptions of collaborative working expectations. None of the DA contracts
were directly tied to UCSF, however the owner reviewed them. UCSF also had separate
contracts with equipment planners and third party reviewers
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:5 [January 2007] (2:419-2:430) (Super)
Codes: [Project Start Time]
January 2007
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:6 [August 2014] (2:451-2:461) (Super)
Codes: [Est. Completion Time]
August 2014
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:8 [UC was able to adopt a collabo..]
(2:1077-2:1211) (Super)
Codes: [Initiation Party]
The project began by following a traditional design process, even as concurrently the UCSF
Director of Design and Construction was working to pursue an integrated and collaborative
delivery model. UC was able to adopt a collaborative delivery process however contracts and
contractual relationships remained fairly traditional.

Positive
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:24 [The first, and possibly most s..]
(4:2196-4:2772) (Super)
Codes: [Training] [Manage] [Aligned Project Goals]
The first, and possibly most significant strategy, was to contract the Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering (CIFE) and an independent team facilitator to work with, educate, and build the
team (see Project Planning). To reinforce and share those lessons, project leadership continue to
hold alignment meetings to discuss how the team should work together to deliver the best project
possible. These meetings range in size from very tight groups of representatives from each firm
to a meeting including several hundred people including the building trades.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:46 [There were pre-existing relati..]
(6:3461-6:3791) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
There were pre-existing relationships at both the firm and individual level for most of the
participants, including major and minor subs. The architect noted, “healthcare building is a pretty
small community. We do tend to know each other.” The owner added, “that was true of many of
the other firms we were talking to.”
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:11 [Market Position This was a pri..]
(2:2122-2:2641) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Market Position: This was a primary driver for UCSF to opt for an IPD model. At the time UCSF
was initiating the project, there was tremendous competition with several other large hospital
projects underway in the region. It was difficult for UCSF, a public organization that typically

322

does hard bid projects, to attract firms with the capability to do a job of this size and complexity.
In the end, UCSF was successful in creating a project team interested in creating a project with
IPD characteristics.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:12 [Although the contract structur..]
(2:2816-2:3018) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Although the contract structure was not integrated, the collaborative experience proved very
valuable to the contractor and architect and they are marketing their experience to win additional
work.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:13 [Cost Predictability As with mo..]
(3:166-3:856) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost] [Target Value Design]
Cost Predictability: As with most large projects, budget was a significant factor and was a major
driver for UCSF to select an IPD delivery model. The Director of Design and Construction, who
had helped build the alliance building program while at Kaiser, felt cost was most predictable
under the integrated model. The contractor was confident it would provide more control as it had
on past project experience that also used a Target Value Design process. Perceived Benefits: IPD
and Target Value Design provide much more control over cost. The team was able to price
before the design was drawn, allowing the team to optimize the design to what the client could
afford.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:14 [Schedule Predictability Schedu..]
(3:859-3:1015) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule]
Schedule Predictability Schedule predictability was a driver because UCSF was to complete this
project to satisfy the requirements of Senate Bill 1953.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:99 [The project team felt the proj..]
(3:2936-3:3119) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Perceived Schedule Performance] [Strong Motivator]
The project team felt the project required IPD and co-location in order to meet the OSHPD
submittal dates, without it they estimate an additional 6 months would have been needed.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:15 [Reduced Risk Risk management w..]
(3:1504-3:2078) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Risk]
Reduced Risk: Risk management was a major driver to selecting IPD. The project was very large
and complex with high risks. The project director felt the project would have been at far greater
risk if it had been a hard bid job. Perceived Benefit: The team felt there were significantly lower
risks due to the transparency and high functioning team provided by the integrated delivery. The
contractor in particular noted, “you can only do so much as one company, having an entire team
that works collaboratively has demonstrated significant risk reduction.”

323

"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:16 [Design Complexity IPD was almo..]
(3:2081-3:2481) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivator]
Design Complexity: IPD was almost a necessity in order to build the team capable of
successfully completing a project of this size and complexity. Many healthcare facilities provide
primary care, while this hospital will be at the tertiary care level. Furthermore, this project is
generating new care protocols that outpace typical healthcare evolution, which is typically a 6-8
month rate.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:17 [The architect felt the integra..] (3:27843:2934) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical]
The architect felt the integration gave them the ability to react to the technical complexities,
providing more certainty and control to the owner.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:99 [The project team felt the proj..]
(3:2936-3:3119) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Perceived Schedule Performance] [Strong Motivator]
The project team felt the project required IPD and co-location in order to meet the OSHPD
submittal dates, without it they estimate an additional 6 months would have been needed.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:16 [Design Complexity IPD was almo..]
(3:2081-3:2481) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Technical] [Strong motivator]
Design Complexity IPD was almost a necessity in order to build the team capable of successfully
completing a project of this size and complexity. Many healthcare facilities provide primary care,
while this hospital will be at the tertiary care level. Furthermore, this project is generating new
care protocols that outpace typical healthcare evolution, which is typically a 6-8 month rate."
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:22 [The owner created an incentive..]
(4:1019-4:2048) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Culture fit]
The owner created an incentive program, whereby the team is rewarded for schedule
performance, collaborative behavior, safety performance, change order mitigation, quality
control, workforce collaboration and overall budget performance. The majority of these
incentives are awarded based on performance to an established metric. The overall budget
performance is a shared savings incentive in which the Contractor and the MEP subs with GMP
subcontracts participate in a portion of the savings acquired through successful execution of the
work under the budgeted cost. The Contractor believes these incentive arrangements played a
significant role in tying the subs together, promoting open dialogue, and supporting the desired
collaborative behavior. The MEP trades recognized that if they help their partners be more
efficient, without significant impact to their own scope of work, there was mutual benefit.
Conversely, if a situation caused a partner to lose money, it cost everyone money
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:26 [The shared savings program is ..]
(4:3645-4:4216) (Super)

324

Codes: [Commitment] [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Manage]
The shared savings program is an effective cultural tool that maintains give and take between
subs; after each executive meeting, individual participants spread the message about the
importance of interaction, noticeably reinvigorating the larger team to work as one organization.
One of the project’s BIM coordinators commented, “Sometimes I feel like there’s a lot of love in
this room …people will say, ‘Oh I’ll move.’ In the 2 years I’ve been doing coordination [for this
project], there are maybe 5 instances where people said, ‘No, I cannot move.’”
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:33 [Separate from the contract, th..]
(5:1045-5:1240) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
Separate from the contract, there was an incentive program tied to project milestones and team
performance metrics as well as a shared savings incentive for MEP subs, see details under Goals
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:78 [Team members speculated that t..]
(10:2933-10:3645) (Super)
Codes: [Remove obstacles]
Team members speculated that the degree of culture change may be related to the size of the
group at the time a particular firm joined. As the project shifted into the construction phase, new
team members were brought on and people redistributed. Team members noted relationships
formed during construction were less close compared to earlier ones leading to more difficulty
with communication and less enforcement of behavioral principles. To alleviate this
disconnection, a team member from the architect team created an orientation packet for new
team members; it outlined logistical information about the team as well as the team charter
(goals and expectations) of each particular group.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:80 [Market Impact The market crash..]
(10:4422-11:798) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Remove obstacles]
Market Impact: The market crash of 2008 was the biggest obstacle to maintaining a culture of
trust on this project. The rumor of a hard bid circulated throughout the local industry. Subcontractors who assumed that design assist would lead to construction contracts were concerned
that their trust had been abused. In fact, the project did not switch to hard bid and the DA subs
were awarded contracts as anticipated,
In response to the tension, the project leadership took action to restore the team relationships.
They first developed a survey and distributed it to the entire team, giving everyone the
opportunity to share their concerns and make suggestions for improvement (also see Goals under
Communication & Alignment). Questions focused on each organization, UCSF, Stantec, and
DPR. Once the results had been reviewed, an all hands meeting were held to share the results and
identify action items that each organization could take to improve their standing with the team.
At the time of this study, the team was still in the process of determining how frequently to
follow-up on this exercise, but improvements in team morale have been noted.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:83 [Most team members adapted well..]
(11:1723-11:2132) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Remove obstacles]

325

Most team members adapted well to the co-located and open office environment, however the
team recognized that not all activities were well suited to the active and open environment. To
address this, they provided breakout rooms that gave individuals a place to work quietly in order
to have a conference call or if they needed a private area to focus, think, and work out solutions
independently.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:98 [A strategy implemented by the ..]
(4:4594-5:445) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles] [Trust]
A strategy implemented by the team to build and maintain trust was a questionnaire and trust
discussion (see more in Culture under Market Impact). A questionnaire was sent to the entire
team, it asked individuals how they perceived each organization, owner, architect, contractor, in
terms of good and bad behaviors or actions. Project leadership learned a great deal of
information by reviewing the results. An all hands meeting was held where each organization
committed to actions that would address the concerns raised, demonstrating their willingness to
change. For example, DPR adapted their communication style so that factors other than cost
(such as quality or sustainability) could be acknowledged more readily. Another follow-up
exercise enabled team members to identify principles of trust that all individuals should abide by.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:68 [One of the biggest differences..]
(9:2726-9:3118) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Decision making system]
One of the biggest differences between IPD and design build is owner involvement. As an active
part of the decision making process, the owner had significant influence on the project outcomes
by offering valuable insight to the design and construction team, especially with regard to
operational issues. Their perspective was critical to evaluating the true cost/benefit tradeoffs.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:71 [During the construction phase,..]
(9:4679-10:910) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System][manage]
During the construction phase, the Captains group dissolved, replaced by the Project Solutions
Group (PSG). The PSG group coordinates issues, evaluates solutions and provides direction on
issues that are not resolved in the daily huddles. The group includes leaders from the owner,
architect, and Contractor, and PM consultant, often the same people who had served as Captains
during the design phase. Anyone on the integrated team can bring an issue to the PSG group;
items are tracked on a PSG log. The individual that sponsors the issue, or a representative from
their respective organization, attends the meeting to present the problem. This process enables the project leadership to respond very quickly. PSG meetings occurred daily during “office
hours,” a time when no other meetings could be scheduled. This ensures all team members are
available to address any urgent issues. PSG items are sorted daily and color coded to help
prioritize time critical items over issues that could be addressed at a later time. The PSG log also
tracked costs so budget implications are known. Once a solution was identified, the issue was
relegated to the appropriate path typically (RFI, field order, change order or submittal) for
official resolution and documentation.

326

Most decisions were made through the PSG, with the exception of Elective Change Requests
(ECR). Elective changes are brought to the executive level decision makers who control the
elective contingency budget.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:72 [During design, the primary dec..]
(9:3437-9:4674) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System][Negotiation]
During design, the primary decision makers were the Captains, representatives from every major
firm involved at the time. Captains played several roles and met as needed, at times daily,
sometimes every other day. The Captains group was responsible for helping resolve issues at
many levels, from team structure and relationships to significant project decisions. Sometimes
the group would function as mediator if there were disagreements at the cluster level. One of key
roles they played was revising and streamlining the Project Modification and Innovation (PMI)
process (see Implementation), which was a powerful tool for harnessing the expertise of all team
members in problem solving. Most issues, including over 600 PMIs, went through the captain’s
group before going to the executive level. Their level of authority evolved as the confidence
level rose between the executives and the Captains. In the beginning, every PMI was elevated to
the executive level because the executives wanted control over decisions that may have
significant impacts to construction. After about a 5-month calibration period, the executives
granted the Captains power to make decisions with impacts up to $50,000.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:24 [The first, and possibly most s..]
(4:2196-4:2772) (Super)
Codes: [Training] [Manage] [Aligned Project Goals]
The first, and possibly most significant strategy, was to contract the Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering (CIFE) and an independent team facilitator to work with, educate, and build the
team (see Project Planning). To reinforce and share those lessons, project leadership continue to
hold alignment meetings to discuss how the team should work together to deliver the best project
possible. These meetings range in size from very tight groups of representatives from each firm
to a meeting including several hundred people including the building trades.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:25 [Another approach taken by the ..]
(4:2776-4:3417) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Aligned project goals]
Another approach taken by the project team, was to clearly articulate goals, collaborative
expectations, and incentives within the design assist (DA) contracts. Using the contract ensured
subs understood expectations for meeting incentive requirements from the beginning.
Additionally, the Contractor found that meeting with the superintendent and PM’s participating
in upcoming milestones was very effective at maintaining alignment and proactively ensuring
each participant had a clear understanding of the relational behaviors needed to achieve that goal.
These meetings served as a reminder of shared milestone goals
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:27 [Subcontractors, who were tied ..]
(4:3479-4:3644) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Manage]

327

Subcontractors, who were tied to the shared savings plan, meet monthly with the Contractor’s
executives to discuss items and issues affecting the entire project.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:43 [All groups, at both the produc..]
(6:2089-6:2322) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Manage]
All groups, at both the production and cluster level, identified a lead individual responsible to
coordinate with other groups. Overlap and cross talk between groups enabled flexibility and
control of cost, schedule and quality.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:50 [They observed that subcontract..]
(7:1490-7:1927) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Information sharing mechanisms]
They observed that subcontractors who were used to closed-door offices had difficulty adapting
to the open environment; everything worked on is visible, open and accessible to everyone. On
the positive side, most subcontractors (and the design team) recognized the benefit to having so
many resource people available immediately; it saved time researching and eliminated the need
for drafting emails or leaving phone messages.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:69 [Co-location was a critical par..]
(9:3120-9:3434) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Information sharing patterns]
Co-location was a critical part of leveraging the benefit of owner involvement. With everyone
easily accessible, the team was able to confer with the owner immediately before they invested
resources and time chasing down a user group request, or exploring a solution that may not be
desirable to the owner.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:85 [Tool s • CMiC (Networked colla..]
(11:3310-11:3599) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Tools
• CMiC (Networked collaborative Project Management software)
• ProjectWise (Networked document repository software)
• BIM
• Smart Boards
• Face-to-face exchange/Co-location
• Lean tracking
• Visual Management Tools (publicly posted project metrics)
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:86 [The team used several tools to..]
(11:3602-11:4133) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
The team used several tools to make information available. The Project Team tracked project
metrics, such as Last Planner reliability and project cost goals, which were publicly posted
throughout the workspace. One of the project’s BIM managers noted that their particular
combination of physical, cultural and software tools created the advantages; for example, co-

328

location ensured the people critical to making decisions were present and the project
management software, CMiC, provided the information when needed.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:93 [The team used ProjectWise, a s..]
(12:4813-12:5129) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
The team used ProjectWise, a shared, server based document management system, to manage the
models. All project models were live, so everyone had access to the most current information.
The server-based system allowed team members working remotely from other parts of the
country to also work in real time.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:65 [The project team has seen sign..]
(9:634-9:2188) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [BIM] [Problem addressed]
The project team has seen significant value added through integrating subcontractors into the
team. One of the biggest advantages of the collaboration is the level of detail and reliability of
the BIM that was achieved. For example, the detailed coordination of systems enabled shop
welding of connections between structural steel and pre-cast and curtain wall elements. Welds
were all shop welded by the structural steel sub, far more efficient for the project than field
welding by multiple subs. This added some time to structural steel erection, but there was a
significant net savings of time and cost to the owner. This would have been very difficult to
achieve without IPD because it required accelerated coordination to meet tight time constraints
for the steel fabrication submittals and full participation by the architect to determine the location
of curtain wall sooner than expected.Another example of integrated collaboration leading to
significant owner savings was an inventive cable support system. The project originally specified
expensive cable trays. J-hooks are the less costly alternative, but were unacceptable since they
limited flexibility for UCSF’s facilities team. One of the team members came up with a
triangular hook configuration that solved the flexibility issue yet remained low cost. The
architects reviewed the option and the electrical sub confirmed they could easily install it, the
idea was accepted, saving the project significant cost while meeting user needs.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:88 [BIM Model Manager: Shared betw..]
(12:166-12:496) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
BIMModel Manager: Shared between Architect (Anshen + Allen, now Stantec) through DD and
Contractor (DPR) for duration.Management Protocol: Team Charters developed during VDC
Training with the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE)Custom MEP Coordination
Process developed by DPR based on owner requirements
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:89 [UCSF requested the project tea..]
(12:499-12:784) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
UCSF requested the project team utilize Building Information Modeling (BIM) tools to the
greatest extent possible. This meant using BIM for coordination purposes, quantity take-off,
estimating and for pre-fabrication. The focus of the coordination effort was on the MEP systems.

329

P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:90 [The architect and engineer (AR..]
(12:975-12:1208) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
The architect and engineer (ARUP) were responsible for high-level coordination of the model
through 100% DD. The architecture model, built in ArchiCAD, served as the basis for MEP
coordination from an architectural perspective.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:92 [One of the biggest challenges ..]
(12:4398-12:4810) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed] [BIM]
One of the biggest challenges to the BIM coordination was communicating changes to the entire
team. A successful tool was a map of design changes with modifications clouded by the
designers. Issues arose making sure other system changes were fully distributed to the team. For
example, structural steel discoveries proved difficult to communicate to all systems affected -some just slipped through.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:94 [The team added additional BIM ..]
(13:627-13:1322) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Challenge]
The team added additional BIM functionality by linking the model with “Our Plan,” the
Contractor’s software program used to track the Last Planner Schedule. The concept was to link
quantities to schedule commitments, and use the information to validate field commitments.
They were able to track how long it took trades to complete certain scopes of work, so they could
better estimate future work durations. For example, when planning the slab on deck work, they
were able to identify areas in the building with a higher number of inserts and adjusted the
duration of that piece of work appropriately. BIM was valuable in helping trades visualize
challenges to certain areas.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:95 [In addition to coordination, B..]
(12:5134-13:204) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
In addition to coordination, BIM was intended for use in quantity take-offs, estimating and prefabrication. The team was able to use the models for some quantity take-offs and prefabrication,
but not for estimating.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:96 [A BIM matrix outlined detailed..]
(12:3087-12:3236) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
A BIM matrix outlined detailed roles and responsibilities by discipline; a format created by the
Contractor based on past hospital BIM experience.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:97 [The goal was for the 100% CD m..]
(12:2628-12:2920) (Super)
Codes: [BIM]
The goal was for the 100% CD model to be fully coordinated and clash free for submission to
OSHPD. The model was used to extract the 2D drawings stamped by the design team and

330

submitted to OSHPD. Post OSHPD submittal, the models were used for shop drawing and
prefabrication documents.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:59 [The contractor implemented the..]
(8:3008-8:3621) (Super)
Codes: [Last Planner System]
The contractor implemented the Last Planner System managed by their proprietary schedule
software called “Our Plan.” The visual and interactive format provided facilitated planning and
serves as a learning tool; it helped subcontractors more accurately predict schedules and time
commitments. To date, the project maintains an average of 82% reliability for the majority of the
construction phase. The contractor noted they would have loved to get higher, but they were
cautious that “sandbagging” commitments to reach a higher reliability would decrease
willingness to pursue aggressive goals.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:13 [Cost Predictability As with mo..]
(3:166-3:856) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Cost] [Target Value Design]
Cost Predictability: As with most large projects, budget was a significant factor and was a major
driver for UCSF to select an IPD delivery model. The Director of Design and Construction, who
had helped build the alliance building program while at Kaiser, felt cost was most predictable
under the integrated model. The contractor was confident it would provide more control as it had
on past project experience that also used a Target Value Design process. Perceived Benefits: IPD
and Target Value Design provide much more control over cost. The team was able to price
before the design was drawn, allowing the team to optimize the design to what the client could
afford.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:30 [Another follow-up exercise ena..]
(5:325-5:566) (Super)
Codes: [Visual management]
Another follow-up exercise enabled team members to identify principles of trust that all
individuals should abide by. Those principles were recorded in a visual format and displayed
throughout the shared workspace as daily reminders.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:60 [Another valuable implementatio..]
(8:3627-8:4071) (Super)
Codes: [Daily Huddle]
Another valuable implementation tool was the daily huddle. Huddles allowed the subs to meet
early in the morning with the architect and CM to identify items that may hold up their work for
the day, such as an RFI. This allowed the team to prioritize work and decisions to avoid
inefficiencies in the field. Decisions that cannot be made in the daily huddle are sent to the
Project Solutions Group (PSG) for solution and or direction.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:58 [During design, the team develo..]
(8:2267-8:2892) (Super)
Codes: [Other tools]

331

During design, the team developed a tool for capturing and exploring innovation ideas that could
optimize project results. The tool, referred to as a Project Modification and Innovations (PMI),
(see more in Decision Making). A PMI is a mechanism to allow everyone on the team to offer
input, similar to the Lean tool known as an A3 form. The process was introduced to the team by
Cambridge, the owner’s consultant. As a result of the PMI process, the team was able to add
back original scope that had been deleted to meet budget under the traditional design process of
designing first and estimating second.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:65 [The project team has seen sign..]
(9:634-9:2188) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [BIM] [Problem addressed]
The project team has seen significant value added through integrating subcontractors into the
team. One of the biggest advantages of the collaboration is the level of detail and reliability of
the BIM that was achieved. For example, the detailed coordination of systems enabled shop
welding of connections between structural steel and pre-cast and curtain wall elements. Welds
were all shop welded by the structural steel sub, far more efficient for the project than field
welding by multiple subs. This added some time to structural steel erection, but there was a
significant net savings of time and cost to the owner. This would have been very difficult to
achieve without IPD because it required accelerated coordination to meet tight time constraints
for the steel fabrication submittals and full participation by the architect to determine the location
of curtain wall sooner than expected.
16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:65 (2) [The project team has seen sign..]
(9:634-9:2188) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [Problem addressed] [Challenge]
Another example of integrated collaboration leading to significant owner savings was an
inventive cable support system. The project originally specified expensive cable trays. J-hooks
are the less costly alternative, but were unacceptable since they limited flexibility for UCSF’s
facilities team. One of the team members came up with a triangular hook configuration that
solved the flexibility issue yet remained low cost. The architects reviewed the option and the
electrical sub confirmed they could easily install it, the idea was accepted, saving the project
significant cost while meeting user needs.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:10 [The team co-located on site an..]
(2:1764-2:1955) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
The team co-located on site and collaboratively developed and coordinated the construction
documents. As the team expanded, it remained co-located onsite for the duration of construction.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:57 [Co-location] (8:2233-8:2243) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
Co-location
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:69 [Co-location was a critical par..]
(9:3120-9:3434) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Information sharing patterns]

332

Co-location was a critical part of leveraging the benefit of owner involvement. With everyone
easily accessible, the team was able to confer with the owner immediately before they invested
resources and time chasing down a user group request, or exploring a solution that may not be
desirable to the owner.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:74 [Co-location was identified as ..]
(10:1328-10:1885) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Culture Fit]
Co-location was identified as one of the most critical factors in creating the culture and
relationships desired on the project, (see also Workplace). Separate parties work face to face with
a higher degree of interaction compared to a non-integrated, non-co-located project. In addition
to facilitating work communication, co-location supported social interactions outside of work
hours, such as going out to lunch. Team members note that the level of social comfort carries
over to work; people are more willing to accommodate one another.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:81 [In the design phase, the team,..]
(11:841-11:1380) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
In the design phase, the team, up to 105 individuals from 19 firms, co-located to a large (12,000
sf) trailer complex adjacent to the building site. During construction, the complex more than
doubled (sf) in size to accommodate the larger number of project engineers on the DPR and the
subcontractor teams. The team unanimously placed high value in co-location, attributing to it
many of the benefits achieved on the project and the success of the collaborative relationships
(also see Decision Making, Culture, and BIM).
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:83 [Most team members adapted well..]
(11:1723-11:2132) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Remove obstacles]
Most team members adapted well to the co-located and open office environment, however the
team recognized that not all activities were well suited to the active and open environment. To
address this, they provided breakout rooms that gave individuals a place to work quietly in order
to have a conference call or if they needed a private area to focus, think, and work out solutions
independently.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:84 [The team identified several be..]
(11:2137-11:3283) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
The team identified several benefits of full time co-location. Co-location significantly reduced
latency on the project. The team discussed trying to measure this benefit and found software that
could do it, but did not see the purpose in trying to document the time savings “of a ten second
conversation with thirty seconds trying to track it.” Even without official metrics, the team felt
latency was very minimal. Time was not wasted drafting emails or waiting for responses. When
there were delays, most involved consultants not located on site. One factor that likely optimized
the benefit of co-location was that most team members, including the owner, were full time on
the project – allowing all the resources to be immediately available.

333

P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:84 (2) [The team identified several be..]
(11:2137-11:3283) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
Another significant benefit of co-location was the way it leveraged integration for continuous
coordination during the BIM development process. The team was able to fully model and
coordinate the 878,000 SF building in 18 months. DPR remarked that the speed and quality of
the document production would not have been possible without the integrated, co-located team.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:67 [The Contractor contract requir..]
(9:2312-9:2705) (Super)
Codes: [Trust] [Culture fit]
The Contractor contract required the team to work collaboratively, and the team agreed early on
that in order to have collaboration you must have transparent communication and sharing of
information. Although not explicitly stated in any of the written contracts, transparency was
discussed and the team has understood that it was expected of everyone on the project from the
start.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:98 [A strategy implemented by the ..]
(4:4594-5:445) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles] [Trust]
A strategy implemented by the team to build and maintain trust was a questionnaire and trust
discussion (see more in Culture under Market Impact). A questionnaire was sent to the entire
team, it asked individuals how they perceived each organization, owner, architect, contractor, in
terms of good and bad behaviors or actions. Project leadership learned a great deal of
information by reviewing the results. An all hands meeting was held where each organization
committed to actions that would address the concerns raised, demonstrating their willingness to
change. For example, DPR adapted their communication style so that factors other than cost
(such as quality or sustainability) could be acknowledged more readily. Another follow-up
exercise enabled team members to identify principles of trust that all individuals should abide by.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:26 [The shared savings program is ..]
(4:3645-4:4216) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Manage]
The shared savings program is an effective cultural tool that maintains give and take between
subs; after each executive meeting, individual participants spread the message about the
importance of interaction, noticeably reinvigorating the larger team to work as one organization.
One of the project’s BIM coordinators commented, “Sometimes I feel like there’s a lot of love in
this room …people will say, ‘Oh I’ll move.’ In the 2 years I’ve been doing coordination [for this
project], there are maybe 5 instances where people said, ‘No, I cannot move.’”
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:39 [The architect, Contractor and ..]
(5:2199-5:2572) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Team member IPD experience] [Architect] [General Contractor]
The architect, Contractor and subcontractors fully supported the collaborative goals of the owner.
There were individuals from these firms who had previous experience with IPD or similarly

334

collaborative models. Each party demonstrated this commitment by equally sharing the costs of
outside consultants and facilitators that focused on integrated team building.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:68 [One of the biggest differences..]
(9:2726-9:3118) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Decision making system]
One of the biggest differences between IPD and design build is owner involvement. As an active
part of the decision making process, the owner had significant influence on the project outcomes
by offering valuable insight to the design and construction team, especially with regard to
operational issues. Their perspective was critical to evaluating the true cost/benefit tradeoffs.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:22 [The owner created an incentive..]
(4:1019-4:2048) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Culture fit]
The owner created an incentive program, whereby the team is rewarded for schedule
performance, collaborative behavior, safety performance, change order mitigation, quality
control, workforce collaboration and overall budget performance. The majority of these
incentives are awarded based on performance to an established metric. The overall budget
performance is a shared savings incentive in which the Contractor and the MEP subs with GMP
subcontracts participate in a portion of the savings acquired through successful execution of the
work under the budgeted cost. The Contractor believes these incentive arrangements played a
significant role in tying the subs together, promoting open dialogue, and supporting the desired
collaborative behavior. The MEP trades recognized that if they help their partners be more
efficient, without significant impact to their own scope of work, there was mutual benefit.
Conversely, if a situation caused a partner to lose money, it cost everyone money.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:42 [At the beginning of CDs, DA su..]
(6:567-6:1021) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Culture fit]
At the beginning of CDs, DA subs became involved, and representatives from each organization
participated in an event led by the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) to plan
production team organization and group overlap strategy, (also see Project Planning). As a result,
team structure became layered, with multiple teams interfacing horizontally and vertically to
ensure cross collaboration and coordination between groups.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:49 [There was no special considera..]
(7:834-7:1486) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
There was no special consideration given to personality types or collaborative skills when
individual participants were selected for the integrated team. However, both the architect and
contractor recognized that an individual’s preference for, or aversion to large projects was key.
The architect commented, “we are always looking for a good dynamic and good fit, especially
for a project of this size and duration, but I don’t think it’s anything special that came from the
fact that this was integrated.”

335

P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:67 [The Contractor contract requir..]
(9:2312-9:2705) (Super)
Codes: [Trust] [Culture fit]
The Contractor contract required the team to work collaboratively, and the team agreed early on
that in order to have collaboration you must have transparent communication and sharing of
information. Although not explicitly stated in any of the written contracts, transparency was
discussed and the team has understood that it was expected of everyone on the project from the
start.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:74 [Co-location was identified as ..]
(10:1328-10:1885) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location] [Culture Fit]
Co-location was identified as one of the most critical factors in creating the culture and
relationships desired on the project, (see also Workplace). Separate parties work face to face with
a higher degree of interaction compared to a non-integrated, non-co-located project. In addition
to facilitating work communication, co-location supported social interactions outside of work
hours, such as going out to lunch. Team members note that the level of social comfort carries
over to work; people are more willing to accommodate one another.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:76 [Contractor As an organization,..]
(10:2498-10:2645) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Contractor As an organization, DPR has an open office culture, so the transition to the co-located,
integrated working environment was smooth.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:21 [Collaboration was required by ..]
(4:250-4:622) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Collaboration was required by contract, but the specific organizational structure to support it
required development once the majority of the team was in place. The team invested in
organizational and team building activities with outside organizations and facilitators (see Early
Planning), however the decision to engage these methods was made collaboratively
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:24 [The first, and possibly most s..]
(4:2196-4:2772) (Super)
Codes: [Training] [Manage] [Aligned Project Goals]
The first, and possibly most significant strategy, was to contract the Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering (CIFE) and an independent team facilitator to work with, educate, and build the
team (see Project Planning). To reinforce and share those lessons, project leadership continue to
hold alignment meetings to discuss how the team should work together to deliver the best project
possible. These meetings range in size from very tight groups of representatives from each firm
to a meeting including several hundred people including the building trades.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:25 [Another approach taken by the ..]
(4:2776-4:3417) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Aligned project goals]

336

Another approach taken by the project team, was to clearly articulate goals, collaborative
expectations, and incentives within the design assist (DA) contracts. Using the contract ensured
subs understood expectations for meeting incentive requirements from the beginning.
Additionally, the Contractor found that meeting with the superintendent and PM’s participating
in upcoming milestones was very effective at maintaining alignment and proactively ensuring
each participant had a clear understanding of the relational behaviors needed to achieve that goal.
These meetings served as a reminder of shared milestone goals
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:26 [The shared savings program is ..]
(4:3645-4:4216) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Reward Structure- Incentive] [Manage]
The shared savings program is an effective cultural tool that maintains give and take between
subs; after each executive meeting, individual participants spread the message about the
importance of interaction, noticeably reinvigorating the larger team to work as one organization.
One of the project’s BIM coordinators commented, “Sometimes I feel like there’s a lot of love in
this room …people will say, ‘Oh I’ll move.’ In the 2 years I’ve been doing coordination [for this
project], there are maybe 5 instances where people said, ‘No, I cannot move.’”
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:27 [Subcontractors, who were tied ..]
(4:3479-4:3644) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Manage]
Subcontractors, who were tied to the shared savings plan, meet monthly with the Contractor’s
executives to discuss items and issues affecting the entire project.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:28 [Informal events, intended to m..]
(4:4221-4:4590) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Informal events, intended to maintain relationships, collaboration, and alignment, are another
strategy. Each quarter, lunch is held for all the management on the project, close to 200 people.
As an unstructured event, it gave everyone a chance to slow down and check in with each other
in a relaxed, social environment to help maintain positive relationships.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:31 [The time spent communicating t..]
(5:572-5:947) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The time spent communicating team performance expectations and maintaining the desired
behavioral characteristics sometime competed with demands of project specific work. The
leadership carefully considered the frequency of all hands alignment meetings; continual
adjustments were made to balance time spent team building and that devoted to project specific
work.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:42 [At the beginning of CDs, DA su..]
(6:567-6:1021) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Culture fit]
At the beginning of CDs, DA subs became involved, and representatives from each organization
participated in an event led by the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) to plan

337

production team organization and group overlap strategy, (also see Project Planning). As a result,
team structure became layered, with multiple teams interfacing horizontally and vertically to
ensure cross collaboration and coordination between groups.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:43 [All groups, at both the produc..]
(6:2089-6:2322) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Manage]
All groups, at both the production and cluster level, identified a lead individual responsible to
coordinate with other groups. Overlap and cross talk between groups enabled flexibility and
control of cost, schedule and quality.

P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:44 [Anticipating the shift from de..]
(6:2325-6:2896) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Anticipating the shift from design to construction, a small representative group was charged with
redesigning the organizational strategy to meet changing needs. Without outside facilitators, the
group built on the CIFE strategies and their experiences during the design process, (see also
Project Planning). They took into consideration the schedule, DPR’s strategy for tackling the
work, and available personnel resources. The work of the group was transparent, cycles of
review and feedback improved the new strategy and created buy in from the team.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:45 [Anticipating the shift from de..]
(6:2325-6:3442) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Negotiation]
As the construction phase began, the design and construction production group was re-organized
by building: the main hospital, the outpatient building, and energy center. Above the cluster
groups, at the project leadership level was the Project Solutions Group. They were charged with
resolving construction issues as quickly as possible and to mediate between the production and
cluster groups as needed. Their primary objective is to eliminate barriers for the subcontractors
in the field, (see details in Decision Making).
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:51 [The team focused a great deal ..]
(7:2089-7:2674) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Training]
The team focused a great deal of effort on non-contractual methods of creating team alignment.
Since a true multiparty IPD contract was not possible in the UC system, non-contractual means
were used to establish relational expectations and implementation details. Team building events
and facilitation were thoroughly documented and resulted in formal or informal agreements
between the owner, architect, Contractor, and DA subs. Agreements covered topics such as: team
organization, collaborative working process, team performance metrics, and behavioral
objectives.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:55 [Managing the collaborative tea..]
(8:1232-8:2108) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Commitment]

338

Managing the collaborative team changed effort distribution; the resources were allocated
differently. Processes that would normally be completed end to end became overlapped. For
example, work that subs typically do in CA was shifted up into the CD phase. Changes had to be
made in staffing for the architect and DPR. For the architect, the primary increase in resources
and staffing came from additional project leadership required to support the new overlapping
process flows. Overall this increased the duration of certain team resources and required more
dedicated resources to the project. There was also investment in team building efforts and
workshops not typically done in traditional or design build projects. Give and take was needed to
accommodate the costs for this different way of working; team members shared costs for team
building.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:71 [During the construction phase,..]
(9:4679-10:910) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System][manage]
During the construction phase, the Captains group dissolved, replaced by the Project Solutions
Group (PSG). The PSG group coordinates issues, evaluates solutions and provides direction on
issues that are not resolved in the daily huddles. The group includes leaders from the owner,
architect, and Contractor, and PM consultant, often the same people who had served as Captains
during the design phase. Anyone on the integrated team can bring an issue to the PSG group;
items are tracked on a PSG log. The individual that sponsors the issue, or a representative from
their respective organization, attends the meeting to present the problem. This process enables the project leadership to respond very quickly. PSG meetings occurred daily during “office
hours,” a time when no other meetings could be scheduled. This ensures all team members are
available to address any urgent issues. PSG items are sorted daily and color coded to help
prioritize time critical items over issues that could be addressed at a later time. The PSG log also
tracked costs so budget implications are known. Once a solution was identified, the issue was
relegated to the appropriate path typically (RFI, field order, change order or submittal) for
official resolution and documentation. Most decisions were made through the PSG, with the
exception of Elective Change Requests (ECR). Elective changes are brought to the executive
level decision makers who control the elective contingency budget.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:80 [Market Impact The market crash..]
(10:4422-11:798) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Remove obstacles]
Market Impact: The market crash of 2008 was the biggest obstacle to maintaining a culture of
trust on this project. The rumor of a hard bid circulated throughout the local industry. Subcontractors who assumed that design assist would lead to construction contracts were concerned
that their trust had been abused. In fact, the project did not switch to hard bid and the DA subs
were awarded contracts as anticipated, In response to the tension, the project leadership took
action to restore the team relationships. They first developed a survey and distributed it to the
entire team, giving everyone the opportunity to share their concerns and make suggestions for
improvement (also see Goals under Communication & Alignment). Questions focused on each
organization, UCSF, Stantec, and DPR. Once the results had been reviewed, an all hands
meeting were held to share the results and identify action items that each organization could take
to improve their standing with the team. At the time of this study, the team was still in the

339

process of determining how frequently to follow-up on this exercise, but improvements in team
morale have been noted.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:88 [BIM Model Manager: Shared betw..]
(12:166-12:496) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Manage]
BIMModel Manager: Shared between Architect (Anshen + Allen, now Stantec) through DD and
Contractor (DPR) for duration.Management Protocol: Team Charters developed during VDC
Training with the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE)Custom MEP Coordination
Process developed by DPR based on owner requirements"
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:94 [The team added additional BIM ..]
(13:627-13:1322) (Super)
Codes: [BIM] [Challenge]
The team added additional BIM functionality by linking the model with “Our Plan,” the
Contractor’s software program used to track the Last Planner Schedule. The concept was to link
quantities to schedule commitments, and use the information to validate field commitments.
They were able to track how long it took trades to complete certain scopes of work, so they could
better estimate future work durations. For example, when planning the slab on deck work, they
were able to identify areas in the building with a higher number of inserts and adjusted the
duration of that piece of work appropriately. BIM was valuable in helping trades visualize
challenges to certain areas.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:65 (2) [The project team has seen sign..]
(9:634-9:2188) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [Problem addressed] [Challenge]
Another example of integrated collaboration leading to significant owner savings was an
inventive cable support system. The project originally specified expensive cable trays. J-hooks
are the less costly alternative, but were unacceptable since they limited flexibility for UCSF’s
facilities team. One of the team members came up with a triangular hook configuration that
solved the flexibility issue yet remained low cost. The architects reviewed the option and the
electrical sub confirmed they could easily install it, the idea was accepted, saving the project
significant cost while meeting user needs.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:45 [Anticipating the shift from de..]
(6:2325-6:3442) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Negotiation]
As the construction phase began, the design and construction production group was re-organized
by building: the main hospital, the outpatient building, and energy center. Above the cluster
groups, at the project leadership level was the Project Solutions Group. They were charged with
resolving construction issues as quickly as possible and to mediate between the production and
cluster groups as needed. Their primary objective is to eliminate barriers for the subcontractors
in the field, (see details in Decision Making).
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:72 [During design, the primary dec..]
(9:3437-9:4674) (Super)

340

Codes: [Decision Making System][Negotiation]
During design, the primary decision makers were the Captains, representatives from every major
firm involved at the time. Captains played several roles and met as needed, at times daily,
sometimes every other day. The Captains group was responsible for helping resolve issues at
many levels, from team structure and relationships to significant project decisions. Sometimes
the group would function as mediator if there were disagreements at the cluster level. One of key
roles they played was revising and streamlining the Project Modification and Innovation (PMI)
process (see Implementation), which was a powerful tool for harnessing the expertise of all team
members in problem solving. Most issues, including over 600 PMIs, went through the captain’s
group before going to the executive level. Their level of authority evolved as the confidence
level rose between the executives and the Captains. In the beginning, every PMI was elevated to
the executive level because the executives wanted control over decisions that may have
significant impacts to construction. After about a 5-month calibration period, the executives
granted the Captains power to make decisions with impacts up to $50,000.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:63 [When DPR was brought on, they ..]
(8:4591-9:179) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
When DPR was brought on, they evaluated the design and current estimate and found the project
was well over the established budget. In March 2009, 7 months after the Contractor was
contracted, DA subs were brought on to participate in design and find options to bring the design
within target.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:65 [The project team has seen sign..]
(9:634-9:2188) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [BIM] [Problem addressed]
The project team has seen significant value added through integrating subcontractors into the
team. One of the biggest advantages of the collaboration is the level of detail and reliability of
the BIM that was achieved. For example, the detailed coordination of systems enabled shop
welding of connections between structural steel and pre-cast and curtain wall elements. Welds
were all shop welded by the structural steel sub, far more efficient for the project than field
welding by multiple subs. This added some time to structural steel erection, but there was a
significant net savings of time and cost to the owner. This would have been very difficult to
achieve without IPD because it required accelerated coordination to meet tight time constraints
for the steel fabrication submittals and full participation by the architect to determine the location
of curtain wall sooner than expected.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:65 (2) [The project team has seen sign..]
(9:634-9:2188) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness] [Problem addressed] [Challenge]
Another example of integrated collaboration leading to significant owner savings was an
inventive cable support system. The project originally specified expensive cable trays. J-hooks
are the less costly alternative, but were unacceptable since they limited flexibility for UCSF’s
facilities team. One of the team members came up with a triangular hook configuration that
solved the flexibility issue yet remained low cost. The architects reviewed the option and the

341

electrical sub confirmed they could easily install it, the idea was accepted, saving the project
significant cost while meeting user needs.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:92 [One of the biggest challenges ..]
(12:4398-12:4810) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed] [BIM]
One of the biggest challenges to the BIM coordination was communicating changes to the entire
team. A successful tool was a map of design changes with modifications clouded by the
designers. Issues arose making sure other system changes were fully distributed to the team. For
example, structural steel discoveries proved difficult to communicate to all systems affected -some just slipped through.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:101 [Even with the additional desig..]
(8:1002-8:1208) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Schedule Growth] [Actual Cost Growth]
Even with the additional design and coordination time, ultimately the team significantly reduced
estimated costs and saved 5 months from the construction schedule another major savings for the
owner.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:99 [The project team felt the proj..]
(3:2936-3:3119) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Schedule] [Perceived Schedule Performance]
The project team felt the project required IPD and co-location in order to meet the OSHPD
submittal dates, without it they estimate an additional 6 months would have been needed.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:101 [Even with the additional desig..]
(8:1002-8:1208) (Super)
Codes: [Actual Schedule Growth] [Actual Cost Growth]
Even with the additional design and coordination time, ultimately the team significantly reduced
estimated costs and saved 5 months from the construction schedule another major savings for the
owner.

Neutral
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:38 [UCSF’s Director of Design and ..]
(5:2028-5:2198) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner]
UCSF’s Director of Design and Construction had previous experience with collaborative
delivery models similar to IPD and championed the process through the UC system.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:39 [The architect, Contractor and ..]
(5:2199-5:2572) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Team member IPD experience] [Architect] [General Contractor]
The architect,
Contractor and subcontractors fully supported the collaborative goals of the owner. There were
individuals from these firms who had previous experience with IPD or similarly collaborative

342

models. Each party demonstrated this commitment by equally sharing the costs of outside
consultants and facilitators that focused on integrated team building.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:39 [The architect, Contractor and ..]
(5:2199-5:2572) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Team member IPD experience] [Architect] [General Contractor]
The architect,
Contractor and subcontractors fully supported the collaborative goals of the owner. There were
individuals from these firms who had previous experience with IPD or similarly collaborative
models. Each party demonstrated this commitment by equally sharing the costs of outside
consultants and facilitators that focused on integrated team building.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:87 [Regular meetings were frequent..]
(11:4439-11:4632) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
Regular meetings were frequent, although some team members felt the number of formal
meetings may be less than other projects due to co-location, where informal conversations were
common.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:66 [Open books are an inherent par..]
(9:2205-9:2307) (Super)
Codes: [Financial Transparency]
Open books are an inherent part of GMP contracts, so the project operated transparently
financially.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:56 [Project Modification and Innov..]
(8:2170-8:2225) (Super)
Codes: [Other tools]
Project Modification and Innovation or PMI (modified A3)
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:9 [Several subs, including MEP, d..]
(2:1623-2:1761) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
Several subs, including MEP, drywall and concrete contractors, provided design assist services
during the construction document phase.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:61 [A/E: Conceptual Design & Progr..]
(8:4094-8:4251) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
A/E: Conceptual Design & Program Validation
Cambridge: Schematic Design
CM/GC: End of Design Development
Trade Contractors: Start of Construction Documents
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:62 [The architect was contracted i..]
(8:4255-8:4589) (Super)

343

Codes: [Phase of involvement]
The architect was contracted in January 2007. In August 2008, late into the DD phase, the
contractor DPR was brought on. This timing was not considered ideal by either the UCSF project
management team or the architect team. UCSF had intended that a GC and major trade
subcontractors would participate earlier in the DD phase.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:64 [When DPR was brought on, they ..]
(8:4591-9:628) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
When DPR was brought on, they evaluated the design and current estimate and found the project
was well over the established budget. In March 2009, 7 months after the Contractor was
contracted, DA subs were brought on to participate in design and find options to bring the design
within target. Participants agreed this was later than ideal but also found that it was difficult to
know what timing would have been preferable. As a firm, DPR has been trying to determine the
ideal time to involve DA subs. Based on their experience, DA involvement during SD may be
too early, it can be unclear how much value subs add when the design is still in its infancy and
pace of development may not warrant dedicated time of the DA subs.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:82 [However, the architect noted t..]
(11:1381-11:1720) (Super)
Codes: [Co-location]
However, the architect noted that there are nuances to co-location, for example line of sight
seems to have played a larger factor than originally anticipated. They noticed some of the
relationships forged during design disintegrated somewhat as team members shifted around and
were no longer located directly next to one another.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:55 [Managing the collaborative tea..]
(8:1232-8:2108) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Commitment]
Managing the collaborative team changed effort distribution; the resources were allocated
differently. Processes that would normally be completed end to end became overlapped. For
example, work that subs typically do in CA was shifted up into the CD phase. Changes had to be
made in staffing for the architect and DPR. For the architect, the primary increase in resources
and staffing came from additional project leadership required to support the new overlapping
process flows. Overall this increased the duration of certain team resources and required more
dedicated resources to the project. There was also investment in team building efforts and
workshops not typically done in traditional or design build projects. Give and take was needed to
accommodate the costs for this different way of working; team members shared costs for team
building.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:73 [The team leadership observed t..]
(10:923-10:1040) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
The team leadership observed team members generally had positive attitudes and personal
commitments to the project.

344

"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:47 [Although not formally part of ..]
(6:4162-6:4314) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Although not formally part of the RFP or the selection consideration, there were discussions
regarding the collaborative aspirations of the project.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:48 [Unique to this project, bid do..] (7:3337:573) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Unique to this project, bid documents included a page that described expectations for teams
relative to the principles of IPD. Criteria were aligned to support these goals; collaborative
experience qualification was heavily weighted.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:50 [They observed that subcontract..]
(7:1490-7:1927) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Information sharing mechanisms]
They observed that subcontractors who were used to closed-door offices had difficulty adapting
to the open environment; everything worked on is visible, open and accessible to everyone. On
the positive side, most subcontractors (and the design team) recognized the benefit to having so
many resource people available immediately; it saved time researching and eliminated the need
for drafting emails or leaving phone messages.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:75 [When the project began, many a..]
(10:1899-10:2495) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
When the project began, many architects on the team were hesitant to move from their home
office to the site. Architecture is very peer oriented and many were concerned about losing touch
with their peers. When the project started, the architect stationed only 4 people on site with
others based in the home office. This split was not well received from the larger integrated team,
so they successfully adjusted by bringing more team members to site.
P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:77 [According to the project leade..]
(10:2665-10:2929) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
According to the project leadership, the most noticeable cultural shifts could be seen within the
primary organizations -- Stantec, DPR, and Cambridge (the owner’s consultant). Some degree of
change penetrated to the level of MEP subs, but to a lesser degree.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:35 [Dispute Resolution The dispute..]
(5:1311-5:1681) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
Dispute Resolution: The dispute resolution process follows an “Alternative Dispute Resolution
model”. If an issue cannot be resolved within the project leadership levels, it is elevated to the
executives of each company. If the executives cannot reach a resolution, the issue goes through
mediation or arbitration, and if those outlets have failed, litigation.

345

"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:37 [The team has found non-contrac..]
(5:1686-5:1874) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
The team has found non-contractual processes are most critical to preventing escalation of an
issue, time spent working out the RFI and submittal processes helped to avoid major issues.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:100 [The architects’ original effor..]
(7:4775-8:701) (Super)
Codes: [Perceived Schedule Performance]
The architects’ original effort estimates were based on traditional contracts, document
deliverables and timescales. Once the CM and DA subs were on board, the integrated team had
to recreate and revalidate the schedule based on a collaborative plan. The revised schedule added
5 months to the design phase and extended the overall project schedule by 2 months. The
additional design development time can be attributed to several factors including transitional
time to educate and team build with late arriving contractor team members, time to collectively
reassess the project’s objectives and milestones, and a potentially overly optimistic original time
estimate.

Negative
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:32 [There was no shared risk/rewar..]
(5:963-5:1042) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure-risk pool]
There was no shared risk/reward pool on this project; no fees were put at risk
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:34 [Liability No limits on liabili..]
(5:1245-5:1308) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure liability waiver]
Liability: No limits on liability were included in the contract.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:36 [Insurance Typical professional..]
(5:1877-5:1968) (Super)
Codes: [Reward structure_insurance]
Insurance: Typical professional insurance was used, no project specific insurance product.
"P16: 12 USCF Mission Bay Medical Center.pdf - 16:75 (2) [When the project began, many a..]
(10:1899-10:2495) (Super)
[Culture Fit]
The architect observed the engineers struggled most with culture change that affected traditional
relationships and hierarchies.

Not Given
There is no quotation under this category.

346

Case Study-Project B
Positive
Owner
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:37 [Training I feel along the way ..] (9:99-9:244)
(Super)
Codes: [Training] [Culture fit]
Training: I feel along the way between the time I spent enough time with The Design Supplier
and reading the materials, we got a pretty good training. FIT
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:2 [To what extent have you worked..] (2:7522:832) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
To what extent have you worked with the other parties in the project team before?
Comment: G Working Closely with the Architect
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:16 [I feel like you are not able t..] (5:7155:1106) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
I feel like you are not able to include the designer. You are not able to think about IPD and
designer right
now together. It feels that they were separate things. That’s maybe a function of me because I
have this long relationship with The Architect. And a very comfortable relationship with them.
So I disagree. That’s my comfort zone. I always feel free to work with the architects.
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:9 [I actually like the concept. I..] (4:848-4:1162)
(Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
I actually like the concept. I did some study starting with a book that you have seen called The
Commercial Real Estate Revolution. The Design Supplier was a big part of helping found of the
mind-shift of a group. I’m not really anti-IPD. I just think there is a proper scale. I’m still
intrigued by it. I learned a lot.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:22 [I was on board. I knew we woul..] (6:19846:2117) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
I was on board. I knew we would spend a lot of money on XC1. I knew we take a lot of our
resources in terms of time to do this.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:41 [Do you have to make some chang..] (9:6669:855) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
Do you have to make some changes about the traditional culture of your organization to make it
fit for the IPD execution? If yes, to what extent are you willing to make the changes? Yes

347

"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:28 [Project Documentation Manageme..]
(8:195-8:238) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Project Documentation Management Software
Comment: G It's a fit based on owner.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:35 [Performance compensation: Yeah..] (8:11388:1259) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Performance compensation: Yeah. Like some of the elements. The incentive structures in general
IPD are very worthwhile.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:40 [Behavior Compensation Evaluati..] (8:668:108) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Behavior Compensation Evaluation ☐ 5
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:37 [Training I feel along the way ..] (9:99-9:244)
(Super)
Codes: [Training] [Culture fit]
Training: I feel along the way between the time I spent enough time with The Design Supplier
and reading the materials, we got a pretty good training. FIT "
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:45 [Who worked as integrator betwe..] (11:81211:1006) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Who worked as integrator between tiers? How did they work? What did they do to enable or
hinder communication and information exchange?AR1 was probably the most effective. AR1
and OPS1
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:42 [How do you balance conflict or..] (9:8629:1247) (Super)
Codes: [commitment to IPD process]
How do you balance conflict or lack of “fit,” if there is any conflict or lack of “fit,” between your
organization culture and the IPD features? I still believe the principles brought out in the study
and IPD are the way of future. My response is that I was looking for the opportunity to bring us
up to date. So I didn’t see it as a problem. I thought it was kind of exciting.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:46 [After this experience in your ..] (11:144411:1709) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment to IPD process]
After this experience in your future projects, how willing are you to devote time, resources and
energy to the IPD project? I would do it. I would do it again if it is the right scale. Complexity to
warrant an IPD structure. It has to have a certain complexity
Comment: G with example.
Architect

348

"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:34 [The sessions AR1- 4 AR2- We collab..]
(6:384-6:442) (Super)
Codes: [Training] [Culture fit]
The sessions
AR1- 4
AR2- We collaborate all the time
AR1- 5
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:2 [OPM, I worked with for..] (1:15551:1912) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
OPM1, I worked with for 20 years, mostly real estate, marketing, quick renovations the existing
building, he has his facility people involved and he typically has a contractor he likes to use. A
contractor that he used over the years. For a building from scratch, starting all the way from the
very beginning, this is his first project with us.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:15 [UR1- Yeah, I understand that you..]
(3:2072-3:2263) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
UR1- Yeah, I understand that your reward and motivation was that getting to know in a work
with IPD so you are also ahead of the market and being a leader in this process as well.
AR1- Yeah.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:59 [AR1- I think IPD process helped…..]
(10:2131-10:2672) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment to IPD process] [Early involvement effectiveness]
AR1- I think IPD process helped… Even The GC came and went quickly, I think that process
helped a lot communications from contractors point of view early on. I think it opened OPM1and
OPS1’s eyes. I think it’s actually a good process to have contractor and GC involved early on to
help understand the process of construction and schedule. I think that was a really good thing. I
think that The Architect would be very willing to do another project with IPD if we all have the
same goals and minds and it wasn’t so driven by just budget.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:39 [G- It’s different at risk when..] (6:13366:1614) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
AR1- It’s different at risk when you haven’t had worked with all these people. Between The
Development Corporation and the Owner, the Architect there is a complete trust. But the entity
at the beginning of a contractor out of state, we’ve seen a lot of his work but it wasn’t the same
comfort as well.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:25 [G- We were following the lead ..]
(4:3523-4:4129) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
AR1- We were following the lead of OPM1. If OPM1 felt he wanted to do IPD, I think myself,
my boss

349

were very willing to go down that path. It wasn’t typical, we never done that before. First of all
we’d never done it with OPM1 and fortunately all three of us were new at it. So it wasn’t like
any of them have great experience so they could tell the others to do it properly. I think we were
very willing to do it. At this point I think we expended lot more time in the design process
because of it. In a typical project we probably would not put ???(high) percentage of our fees in
the design phase.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:26 [AR2- from my perspective, I’ve b..]
(4:4152-5:188) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
AR2- from my perspective, I’ve been doing a lot of research over the years in integrative project
delivery, all the different philosophies in cost structures and risk sharing and collaboration
models and so I was happy to be a part of the team. But I wasn’t the decision maker at our end,
nonetheless encouraging excited this was rolling out in such a fashion. For my perspective, I was
happy to be able to put some practice to things I’ve been looking into in researching.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:31 [What about project documentati..]
(6:22-6:204) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
What about project documentation management software in terms of communications
technology, we never got to use that….
AR1- We use that a lot…
AR2- I’d say a 4 or 5
AR1- I’d say a 5
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:34 [The sessions AR1- 4 AR2- We collab..]
(6:384-6:442) (Super)
Codes: [Training] [Culture fit]
The sessions
AR1- 4
AR2- We collaborate all the time
AR1- 5
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:36 [Project meetings? G- 5] (6:497-6:520)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Project meetings?
AR1- 5
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:37 [Project stewards G- like an ou..] (6:5276:660) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Project stewards
AR1- like an outside leader?
UR1- Someone who communicates and facilitates communication between team members.
AR1- 5"

350

"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:41 [Who was responsible for monito..]
(6:2712-7:113) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
Who was responsible for monitoring the internal and external factors, between you and AR2…
AR1- I’d say Project B was the most cognoscente of who was and who wasn’t, because in fact
we had a 4th person University S, and every time we’d miss somebody someone would jump up
and say “Hey, we have got make sure this person involved. I think that complexity also added to
the communication level
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:53 [so about integration of tiers ..] (8:21748:3530) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
so about integration of tiers (OPM1, the contractor and you), so correct me if I’m wrong, but
you’re your organizations representative in that tier, right?
AR1- yes
UR1- so the organization, you work with AR2?
AR1- there is a project principle AR3
UR1- AR3, as well. You didn’t get to the point where you work with your design engineers,
suppliers or outside engineers?
AR1- there was a structural engineer involved, we have three mechanical, electrical, plumbing
engineers, that have been consulted with so far in the projects
UR1- who would be the person to integrate organization with the suppliers with the engineers?
AR1- The manager of the job would have gotten all those people involved. Now when it got
down to suppliers the person designing the project or managing as an architect would have
probably got hold to the suppliers. ??? came differently because we were looking at donated
suppliers. But also AR2 was very involved and trying to find some outside supplying companies
that could provide some sort of donation that will be part of the project because of the
sustainable products and material.
UR1- does AR2 work with any of the structural engineers the MEP designers…
AR2- yes
AR1- we all work together, our office is very… I don’t want to say flat but, we team up a lot on
projects so it’s not unusual.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:54 [UR1- Can you talk about integrat..] (9:19:1328) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
UR1- Can you talk about integrative roles? Can you elaborate on that, and is it different in the
IPD project than your normal traditional way of doing business.
AR1- Well… when we have a typical project, we would typically have an internal team meeting
where we’d present the project we talk about internal budget and the roles. In this instance, our
mechanical, electrical and plumbing are all in house We were asking them to give us a design
and a scope of work. Because in an IPD, that traditional will be a supplier not the engineer.
Because we need to get some pricing done, we need to engage them and have them do a little bit
more than just an outline. They had to kind of layout what it was going to look like. Mostly
mechanical Same with structural, because the building had to have some sort of budget to it, we

351

had our structural engineer got involved. So they could look to see how it was going to be
constructed with us. That should be typical they are invited to our team meetings, one entity that
hasn’t got involved yet, that’ going to happen in the next couple of weeks is one of our interior
designer is now going to step in and start to put a little bit of finish to it. Looking at the materials,
we’ve established materials so they are going to help us hold together the fit-and-finish
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:56 [UR1- Would you say you are the m..]
(9:2081-9:3477) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
UR1- Would you say you are the main integrator between the project team and you organization?
AR2 is the main integrator between the organization suppliers and design engineers.
AR1- I don’t know, AR2 is doing a different role than typically in our office, because the IPD
(project) it’s a small job we don’t have as many roles, typically there would be a project manager
who deal with the client and the entire team and organizes the team. And they are from the very
beginning to the very end. But it’s interesting about what AR2 is done as he actually jumped on
board with AR3 early on because it was a marketing the project. There wasn’t a full project yet.
When it became a full project, then he is taking over a different role. He is doing some design,
document coordination. Because we eventually have to put together some sort of specification,he
is contacting the suppliers, because we have to know constructible, but also because PROJECT B
need some donations. So if you take on a much of different role, you typically would take as a
normal pass of the project. He is also one of our sustainable coordinator, so it was the natural fit.
A lot of products we are trying to use in this building are more pushing the envelope on
sustainability and maybe something we just want to try for the first time. That’s a good thing.
This is the right building to do that way.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:57 [AR1- I would say, we would be wi..]
(9:3634-9:4294) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment to IPD process]
AR1- I would say, we would be willing but now would know a little more about it we’d want to
take a more substantial role and making sure the process starts differently in the beginning.
AR2- I think we’d want more of a say in how it’s organized but not necessarily ‘say’ as we are
the authority in it, but at least help shape… I think there is a lot that is kind of shaped by The
Design Supplier. They just say this is how we always do it. This is the contract you should use.
This is the tiers of the project team. I just feel like we’d want more at least input into that process,
using this as an experience lessons we learned. We know what communication tools…
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:59 [AR1- I think IPD process helped…..]
(10:2131-10:2672) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment to IPD process] [Early involvement effectiveness]
AR1- I think IPD process helped… Even The GC came and went quickly, I think that process
helped a lot communications from contractors point of view early on. I think it opened OPM1
and OPS1’s eyes. I think it’s actually a good process to have contractor and GC involved early
on to help understand the process of construction and schedule. I think that was a really good
thing. I think that The Architect would be very willing to do another project with IPD if we all
have the same goals and minds and it wasn’t so driven by just budget.

352

General Contractor
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:18 [There is always debate over th..]
(6:1831-7:167) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Negotiate]
There is always debate over the design when you are trying to get the cost down. I wouldn’t say
it was a controversy. I was a big proponent of making sure that there was radiate perimeter heat
at these tall extends of glass set from the floor. I was kind of overwritten on that in the final
analysis based on the desire to get the cost down. I don’t’ know where they are ultimately went,
but they in the last round when I was involved in they were going into very cheap in that system,
which is fine. They understood the risks to it. We had a long conversation about that. How was
that handled? We have some good discussion about it. We engaged subcontractors to comment
on it as well. And of course AR1 and her design team had comment on it. We had conference
calls with her engineers who would ultimately design the system and OPM1 and OPS1 and
everyone. We measured about the pros and cons and ultimately OPM1 make the decision. At
least he made the decision based on very informed
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:30 [Did anyone take a central role..] (12:86312:993) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
Did anyone take a central role in conflict management and negotiation? How? Sacrifice? OPM1
is the central role in negotiation.
Comment: G According to PM1: As to decision making, OPM1 is very collabortive, when
making changes in building design, he always ask opions and feedbacks and input.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:17 [We also collaborated very earl..]
(6:638-6:1275) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Early involvement effectiveness]
We also collaborated very early on even in early budget stage, we go to subcontractors in their
market to get some idea and cost from them and some of their feedback on cost on different
things. We collaborated on the design. So you have to view your experience and ask the right
questions to make sure that you were cleaning the information you need to put together
comprehensive cost. So there were a lot of back and forth communication with the design team
around that. PM1 also collaborate with OPM1 and OPS1. It is done via emails and phone calls.
At this preconstruction stage, the tools for communication were adequate.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:20 [It was all handled via verbal ..] (7:1987:1809) (Super)
Codes: [Information sharing mechanisms]
It was all handled via verbal communication between OPM1 and I and even AR1 at times. In the
numbers, I layout everything, all the details, how I estimated how I contract the numbers they’ve
got in. Everybody could see how it was all put together. I always welcome that they put codes on
it and give us a critical feedback on it. We always have to do that in team relationship like that.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:17 [We also collaborated very earl..]
(6:638-6:1275) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Early involvement effectiveness]

353

We also collaborated very early on even in early budget stage, we go to subcontractors in their
market to get some idea and cost from them and some of their feedback on cost on different
things. We collaborated on the design. So you have to view your experience and ask the right
questions to make sure that you were cleaning the information you need to put together
comprehensive cost. So there were a lot of back and forth communication with the design team
around that. PM1 also collaborate with OPM1 and OPS1. It is done via emails and phone calls.
At this preconstruction stage, the tools for communication were adequate.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:21 [There was absolutely no lack o..]
(7:2481-7:2624) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
There was absolutely no lack of trust among the team member. OPM1 does extremely well. I
wouldn’t say that I trust anyone any more or any less.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:27 [The key to these relationships..] (11:97611:1171) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
The key to these relationships is trust. Internally, we don't ask our staff to do anything except
what is the best interest of the client. So we work in a very transparent manor with our
clientComment: G some more description are given in the interview
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:28 [Did do try to adopt or accept ..]
(11:1468-11:2579) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge] [Reward structure_incentives] [Culture Fit]
Did do try to adopt or accept some new ideas which your organization is not familiar with in this
project? What are they?
Yes. The idea behind compensation layer and aligning all of the players with incentives is
something that we are going to continue to promote in even non IPD project. I think there is
some value there. I think there is something there that I can really get the design, construction
and ownership team alignment. If you don’t have the financial alignment, your alignment is
really about the wanting to maintain a great relationship will result in the teamwork together in
the next job. But you also add this Compensation layer to it and to put your fee at risk, there is
really solid connection that adds to that.
2) Did you encourage the members of your organization to challenge the existing mechanism
with this IPD project and provide some new methods or ideas to this project? How did that go?
Yes
3) Do you think challenging existing mechanism can contribute to the performance of this
project? How? Do you have any examples from the project so far? Yes
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:37 [Reduced Risk ? 5] (9:768-9:785) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Reduced Risk ☐ 5
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:41 [Relational Contract ? 5] (9:1060-9:1085)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]

354

Relational Contract ☐ 5
P16: Structured interview with Jeff.pdf - 16:49 [3) Do you have to make some ch..] (10:10010:301) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
3) Do you have to make some changes about the traditional culture of your organization to
make it fit for the IPD execution? If yes, to what extent are you willing to make the changes? No
Comment: G In the interview, PM1 said, they don't need to make changes in terms of culture in
this IPD project, they have the similar culture before, e.g. get involved early in the project.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:44 [Project Meetings ? 5] (9:1148-9:1168)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Project Meetings ☐ 5
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:18 [There is always debate over th..]
(6:1831-7:167) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Negotiate]
There is always debate over the design when you are trying to get the cost down. I wouldn’t say
it was a controversy. I was a big proponent of making sure that there was radiate perimeter heat
at these tall extends of glass set from the floor. I was kind of overwritten on that in the final
analysis based on the desire to get the cost down. I don’t’ know where they are ultimately went,
but they in the last round when I was involved in they were going into very cheap in that system,
which is fine. They understood the risks to it. We had a long conversation about that. How was
that handled? We have some good discussion about it. We engaged subcontractors to comment
on it as well. And of course AR1 and her design team had comment on it. We had conference
calls with her engineers who would ultimately design the system and OPM1 and OPS1 and
everyone. We measured about the pros and cons and ultimately OPM1 make the decision. At
least he made the decision based on very informed
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:29 [If known, what is your main pr..]
(12:294-12:484) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
If known, what is your main principle (e.g., refuse any changes if you are right; will to
compromise your approach to contribute to the whole project) in negotiation to reach a
consensus?
Comment: G Description of compromising the design to meeting budget requirement is given
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:46 [After this experience in your ..]
(12:1728-12:1997) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment to IPD process]
After this experience in your future projects, how willing are you to devote time, resources
and energy to the IPD project? Very willing
2) What is your commitment to IPD project in the future?
If it had some the facts I mentioned earlier, we will be jumping in.
Comment: G Right project (size) and right place
355

"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:16 [Did IPD help with the decision..]
(5:2722-6:415) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
Did IPD help with the decision making? If so, how? The way we operate in anyway, we didn’t
feel a lot of different although you did know that in the back of your mind that some point some
of??? the compensation layer was going to be laid out and we were all going to be really joint,
really make sure that this happened with minimal changes in the cost run target and everything
else. So I guess that probably impacted how thorough we are up front to
Design Supplier
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:1 [What, if any, prior experience..]
(1:918-2:1391) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Other]
What, if any, prior experiences have you had in IPD projects (either philosophy or contractual)
before?
Yes, 3 contractual IPD projects before
2) (If applicable) Please briefly describe those projects.
SPM1- One was an internal project for The Design Supplier where The Design Supplier was the
owner and vendor, supplier. That was our Atlanta show room. That was basically the kick off for
IPD within our organization. It was a tough mode. We’d been out talking about it and learning
but we said it’s OK. Before we could start recommending it to clients, we need to do it ourselves.
So when the opportunity presented itself, we decided to go with the show room. It was
approximately 7000 sf. It was not a new construction. The shell was already there. It was
basically interiors only. We organized that around clients or suppliers that had been worked with
The Design Supplier in the past. That would be Contractor 3 and Architect 2 and also Architect 3,
which is the MEP here in City D State A. We approached them and said “This is a new concept a
new philosophy, we believe everything we are hearing and seeing will bring values to our
organizations collectively. Would you like to do this with us?” And they all agreed to do that.
That was our first experience. The second experience, I can’t release the name. It’s an
educational organization university level. We just completed team formation. So we hadn’t broke
ground yet. It was interesting because the architect that on this project has done the master plan
and they were not IPD users. So we had to go into this, making decision. The owner had to
decide is the Architect we had already on board that we have invested substantial time and
money in, are they going to be the architect that can go with us into this philosophy. So that was
kind of a sell we have to do to them and they were still on the fence after we presented to them.
But once we give them references within the industry, such as Autodesk,…, Sutter Health,
substantial organizations that have gone to IPD, they came back and said they were in. It’s small
but we want to learn this. It’s interesting that Aaron might appreciate this even a bit more that the
senior partners that on this architectural firm were in their mid to late 50’s while the project
manager had been out of college maybe 5-6 years and he was the one that was the most gung-ho
on going IPD and he was the one that was the most familiar with it. He had actually utilized them
at his past job and he saw the benefit. He was the one that did a lot of internal selling to make
that happen.
S- Interesting. If somebody really committed to it, it goes a long way. Don’t you think?

356

SPM1- Yeah. I think again it’s changing behaviors. Much I played with IPD is to people. Our
first two years is just telling people what is was. Once they understand what it was, we didn’t
really have to twist the arms. Everybody says this is so logical. It’s not the logic that makes the
challenge, it’s the changing behaviors, that is the sampling block sometimes. That is what we
saw with these two, the older more experienced principles versus the younger, “OK, I’ve seen
this, I’ve heard about it. I’m less fearful to take that leap.”
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:6 [Organizationally, it was a str..]
(4:1507-4:1922) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
Organizationally, it was a strong business case, I tend to be more of the warm and fuzzy side, but
it always come down to my business training always tell me, what’s the business case. Well,
there is such a strong business case for IPD. I mean who wouldn’t want their project to come in
on time, on budget and reduce waste. That’s just so logical and so it presents a very strong
business case to the owner.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:27 [SPM1- I was the main person inter..]
(11:1800-12:226) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
SPM1- I was the main person internally from both… because again it’s new for The Design
Supplier, so there is two of us. I am an integrator. I would be the key point of contact between
the owner of the project and the internal decision makers, so I was kind of between the Tier 1
and the Tier 2 and I was doing both actually.
2) How did you monitor the communication? An example of that?
SPM1- City B is a good example that you all had the contract negotiation session in City B at
The GC. I couldn’t be there because I had a client in Toronto. XC1 and SPM2 were. After each
day, we had a download. We had a phone conference and we talked it through. It’s like
instantaneous, this is what we’ve got talk about; this is how it’s going. So we were joined at the
hip.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:15 [SPM1- Well The owner was very
dev..] (8:1362-8:1786) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
SPM1- Well The owner was very devoted. I give them high marks for the devotion. I don’t think
I ever see a owner as involved and passionate about this vision. So that was admirable. I would
say the others in this project people were pretty devoted to making it happen… they went
through different… you know cost analysis. People on this project really try to make it happen. I
would say they did a very good job on that.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:20 [Process Planning-Design Charre..]
(10:267-10:339) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Phase of involvement]
Process Planning-Design Charrettes ☐
Project: 2; Organization: 5

357

P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:22 [Reduced Risk ? 5 Shared Risk ?..]
(10:434-10:483) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Reduced Risk ☐ 5
Shared Risk ☐ Proj.2 Org. 5
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:26 [Do you have to make some chang..]
(10:1041-11:1177) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Commitment to IPD process]
Do you have to make some changes about the traditional culture of your organization to make it
fit for the IPD execution? If yes, to what extent are you willing to make the changes? SPM1- No
question, this is a learning curve for The Design Supplier. This is something we are pursuing as
matter of fact. We convey to our partners that going forward. All our builds will be IPD. But
even still to this day, we have to go back and remind, the old behaviors are still so easy to fall
back into. Yeah, this definitely a lot we’ve got learn yet.
UR1- OK. But what is the extent that you are willing to make those changes in The Design
Supplier?
SPM1- We are willing to make those changes. The first project was in Atlanta, we came in a
budget which they’ve done a three year benchmark from our last showroom in San Francisco. So
over four to three years we know the cost have gone up, but they just it as a benchmarks say “OK,
here is your dollars, even though it’s three years later, we came in with more, in the showrooms
we had restrooms which we never do, they usually a part of the lobby, so we incorporated
restrooms inside our showroom which is typically about $100,000 expense, we also put in
technology, with those added items, our showrooms still came in at $15,000 under budget. So we
are definitely going to make that commitment of going forward.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:26 [Do you have to make some chang..]
(10:1041-11:1177) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Commitment to IPD process]
Do you have to make some changes about the traditional culture of your organization to make it
fit for the IPD execution? If yes, to what extent are you willing to make the changes?
SPM1- No question, this is a learning curve for The Design Supplier. This is something we are
pursuing as matter of fact. We convey to our partners that going forward. All our builds will be
IPD. But even still to this day, we have to go back and remind, the old behaviors are still so easy
to fall back into. Yeah, this definitely a lot we’ve got learn yet.
UR1- OK. But what is the extent that you are willing to make those changes in The Design
Supplier?
SPM1- We are willing to make those changes. The first project was in Atlanta, we came in a
budget which they’ve done a three year benchmark from our last showroom in San Francisco. So
over four to three years we know the cost have gone up, but they just it as a benchmarks say “OK,
here is your dollars, even though it’s three years later, we came in with more, in the showrooms
we had restrooms which we never do, they usually a part of the lobby, so we incorporated
restrooms inside our showroom which is typically about $100,000 expense, we also put in
technology, with those added items, our showrooms still came in at $15,000 under budget. So we
are definitely going to make that commitment of going forward.

358

P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier pdf - 19:31 [I think an enhancement to this..]
(13:117-13:1320) (Super)
I think an enhancement to this IPD, even though it didn’t go through forward, was having
University S involved. I think when you have that academic engagement, it leans to the pursuit
of excellence and betterment. rather it be business practice or personal. I think this is knowledge
and research. I would love to going forward, have that type of partnership in future project.
Because I think that mental accountability like “OK, we are not just responsible for the outcome
this building in which people will have it (?) and work. We are also responsible for this learning
mechanism. That’s one thing that I would say it’s an added benefit. I’m working on a couple of
other projects with a significant healthcare organization. Because health-care as we know is one
of the most construction projects, it used to be per bed in the cost of a hospital would come in
right around 4 million dollars, now it is double that. That’s why California was the first to
initiated IPD, because of the health care cost. I think going forward, absolutely this is what we
have to do. It’s no longer an option. I would not even hesitate to say too much that it wouldn’t (?)
become mandated some day
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:29 [SPM1- No. I’d actually say IPD pr..]
(12:1011-12:1624) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
SPM1- No. I’d actually say IPD probably enhanced it. Because if we hadn’t had IPD, there
would have been much more lag time. I’ve worked on project before it was like “OK, I’ll get to
it, I’ll get to it. But IPD is kind of, even though we didn’t sign the contract, it kind of mentally
put you into some of a verbal contract and it kind of enhanced its accountability. That is really
what IPD is, too. It’s the accountability factor. There maybe once or twice OPS1 had to track me
down but they were very responsive when we needed some information. I think IPD actually
enhanced the communication process.
UR1- Well even though was not pursued full contractually, it added to the quality of the project
in that sense.
SPM1- It is. I think people walk away from it maybe a little disappointed, because they would
have loved to pursue it. Because of that innovative edge, they want to be part of that. You want
to test that and see if it really does work. For those who have tested this before, I think would be
a little disappointed. I will be very surprised if anybody walked away from that and said “This is
crap. I will never do this again.”

Neutral
Owner
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:38 [Session I didn’t think they we..] (9:2479:379) (Super)
Codes: [Training]
Session
I didn’t think they were as effective as they could be. XC1’s value probably comes in drafting
the documents.
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:34 [Do you think you were sharing ..] (8:7548:1134) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Reword Structure_risk pool]

359

Do you think you were sharing the risk by all?
No. The architect and contract get their cost covered. Their profits were at risk. But I had more
than that at risk which is fair. That’s why I do what I do and they do what they do. I also have an
unlimited reward. Their reward is very limited. The notions of shared risk is a little oversold
from my perspective as an owner.
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:6 [You can be the best writer in ..] (3:9993:1741) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Remove Obstacles]
You can be the best writer in the world, but it’s very hard to convey a nuanced situation in an
email. I am also in written to correspondence and record in fact. I am really a proponent of that.
It’s kind of verbal communication might have been better. But then I could never fully resolve
myself. That one-on-one verbal communication was somehow violating the spirit of IPD.
Through email you could CC everybody and said OK, I have made a team thing. There is a
couple of times that I want to pick up the phone and call SPM1 and say SPM1 here is what’s
going on. And I did that a couple of times and I could have done that more. But then I am
keeping people out of the loop. I can’t schedule a conference call of 10 minutes.
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:18 [I think this get us back to th..] (6:9-6:249)
(Super)
Codes: [Trust] [Commitment]
I think this get us back to the trust that is required. I fought the temptation to revert to standard
procedures. SPM2 in The Design Supplier and XC1 keep talking about that people reverting to
their standard operating procedures.
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:7 [The reason is because it was t..] (3:23463:2652) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
The reason is because it was the condition of The Design Supplier contribution to the project.
They originally had a conditional support. They said “ OPM1, we will do all this for Project B,
provided you implement and allow us to document the study in IPD process. So that wasabsolute
condition.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:17 [So The GC actually did not imp..] (5:11095:1188) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
So The GC actually did not impact any design decisions while they were on board.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:18 [I think this get us back to th..] (6:9-6:249)
(Super)
Codes: [Trust] [Commitment]
I think this get us back to the trust that is required. I fought the temptation to revert to standard
procedures. SPM2 in The Design Supplier and XC1 keep talking about that people reverting to
their standard operating procedures.

360

P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:41 [Do you have to make some chang..] (9:6669:855) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
Do you have to make some changes about the traditional culture of your organization to make it
fit for the IPD execution? If yes, to what extent are you willing to make the changes? Yes
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:43 [OPS1 is the only one to monito..] (10:12910:439) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
OPS1 is the only one to monitor. He is being actually educated in the process. If he a person
saying, “OK, this is not going to the right direction”.it could have been earlier in decision
making not to go for IPD? I think he did a great job. Our structure ???47:37was pretty low. That
was not the problem
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:19 [Did you see any loops of commu..] (6:13446:1610) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Did you see any loops of communication or time lost because of the mechanisms in project
management?
We are kind of training OPS1 on the job. He learns a lot. He also learns how to manage me and
how to work with the owner. He has got a lot of things to balance.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:21 [I think this get us back to th..] (6:9-6:745)
(Super)
Codes: [Manage]
I think this get us back to the trust that is required. I fought the temptation to revert to standard
procedures. SPM2 in The Design Supplier and XC1keep talking about that people reverting to
their standard operating procedures.
Who is the leader of the project?
OPS1 is supposed to be the leader. The literature and documents are pretty clear on that in terms
of sort of the owner’ committee Tier 1 committee and Tier 2 committee. These are committee
decisions of which I sort of have a vital power I didn’t learn that was a flawed model??? If the
numbers are came in OK, we wouldn’t be talking about any of this. We probably just be
proceeding on the IPD. It is possible to lose the side of the effect in IPD.
Comment: N does not have a strong climate environment, leader is not very clear in terms of
SPM1, XC1 or OSM1 & OPM1
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:4 [You quit IPD, but were you sat..] (2:18193:313) (Super)
Codes: [Participants Satisfaction] [Remove Obstacles]
You quit IPD, but were you satisfied with the skill levels of the project participants or not
(incentives/incentives management efforts to remove obstacles for implement)? I think the team
was overqualified in the project. Yes I was satisfied, but that level of sophistication get in the
way of the actual delivery of a fairly simple building. It is completely depended on the
complexity of the project. If this were an complex project, it would have an different answer.

361

Architect
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:1 [Some of the techniques that I ..] (1:3591:953) (Super)
Codes: [Architect] [Team member IPD experience]
Some of the techniques that I have used in IPD whether they are collaborative with the owner
doing a design charrettes some sort of early on before we even have a budget or before we have a
contractor involved. Also, we’ve also done projects with Herman-Miller and gordons foods,
where they have a contractor early on board. They are as a CM role and all three team players are
following the project from design and stepping into design development so we can price it
properly and make sure we are on/ within a budget. Those projects I feel sometimes make
owners be more accountable…
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:10 [I think that was urged by the ..] (2:28662:3328) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
I think that was urged by the The Design Supplier group. I think it was something they truly
wanted to try. And I think I don’t know what your involvement early on until the start this at the
very beginning, weather it was a great tool, you know I think it was a great research product,
you can see something from the begging to the end. I think you guys were so involved of
wanting it to be a IPD as well. I think he was continuing to try to see how it would work.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:13 [UR1- What were your motivations ..]
(3:1023-3:1664) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
UR1- What were your motivations as an individual organization to join this IPD project?
AR1- Well, we’d never done one. Sounded like a great thing for all of us to learn from, because
it’d been really a talk among the American Institute of Architect publications. They developed a
contract and items for us to prove and use, but we’d never had that opportunity. It really has to
be an owner that really want to try it. It can’t be just the Architect says “Hey, let’ do this.” It has
to be a driving force from the owner. I think OPM1 was definitely willing to try something new
as long as it’s going to fit into this process for him.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:40 [AR2- You need lots of communicat..]
(6:1744-6:2414) (Super)
Codes: [Reward Structure- Incentive]
AR2- You need lots of communication up front about why you are hesitant to engage in this
process and then from the owner stand point, they would have to reestablish or renegotiate some
of the risk rewards. So that’s what we do it as a business. We are always kind of managing our
risks and if we don’t see appropriate reward for that, whatever risk it takes. But if it is something
that we can tolerate, we have a large enough carrot, and then I think it could be more…
G- We just don’t want to be a looser. If anything we want to be even. If you go below the even
mark, then there is the problem. Network communication has to be totally on all three parties.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:6 [G- we had some conference call..]
(2:784-2:1363) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]

362

AR1- we had some conference calls with them. Did we have any go-to meetings with them?
AR2-uhh, I think it was primarily conference calls
AR1- we just tried that go-to recently with The new contractor. That’s the first time the Owner
ever tried that. We had many conversations with PM1. Weather when we all went to visit, also
before the visit, during interview process, after that we have conference calls to talk about
different contractors that could be involved and we could save money. And we did that, a
number of those without the Owner because we are trying to get him up to speed.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:38 [AR2- I think the challenge there..]
(6:804-6:1333) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Trust]
AR2- I think the challenge there is the culture of trust and risk sharing is the big hiccup. We had
to be concerned with that and that’s, to me, one of a big shifts in the whole process. We are not
silos. We’re looking each for our own reward. We are looking as a group and you can’t do that in
isolation, you can’t do that with people you don’t trust. Our offices have relations with a lot of
different contractors and other key players. But I think we are shy in committing to that kind of
risk sharing, and obligation.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:38 [AR2- I think the challenge there..]
(6:804-6:1333) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Trust]
AR2- I think the challenge there is the culture of trust and risk sharing is the big hiccup. We had
to be concerned with that and that’s, to me, one of a big shifts in the whole process. We are not
silos. We’re looking each for our own reward. We are looking as a group and you can’t do that in
isolation, you can’t do that with people you don’t trust. Our offices have relations with a lot of
different contractors and other key players. But I think we are shy in committing to that kind of
risk sharing, and obligation.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:12 [AR2- I have to say though that i..]
(3:162-3:825) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
AR2- I have to say though that in our early kind of IPD design charrettes with The Design
Supplier, some of the things we discussed are still apart of the project, so I think we can’t label
this as a failure The Design Supplier was instrumental in encouraging OPM1 to do more of a
collaborative, open office atmosphere work space atmosphere versus kind of a more tradition
box, with private offices and close conference rooms and something like that. And that’s
something we are still working with, still pursing, from that perspective, I think the IPD process
still works but I think the contractual part petered out. Just to reiterate some the positives of the
whole process
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:29 [Okay shared risk G- A 3] (5:3043-5:3067)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Okay shared risk: AR1- A 3

363

P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:32 [What about relational contract..] (6:2116:274) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
What about relational contract in terms of the agreement?
AR1- 3
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:30 [Behavior compensation G- Behav..]
(5:3131-6:15) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Behavior compensation
AR1- Behavior?
UR1- Yeah
AR2- More like working as a team to get…
AR1- ooooh
UR1- Yeah
AR1- 4!
Comment: N, performance compensation 3
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:33 [What about communication tools..]
(6:282-6:378) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
What about communication tools? Is it a good fit to your culture or not. So IPD training?
AR1- 4
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:42 [UR1- to what extent were the mem..]
(7:117-7:387) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
UR1- to what extent were the member of your team encouraged to monitor those factors?
AR1- well every time we had any communication we were asked to copy multiple entities. There
is a fifth entity—The Design Supplier. That was very confusing. There wasn’t just three. There is
five.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:23 [I think at the point we stoppe..] (4:14034:1779) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
I think at the point we stopped, I don’t think we had any controversial things. At that point I
don’t think anybody was at risk. Once you get to a point that you have some risk, and that you
are not paid for the service you are doing, I think that can sometimes cause communication to be
more important. At the time we stopped, I didn’t see any problem about management.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:24 [The only thing I would say neg..]
(4:1780-4:2377) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
The only
thing I would say negatively and I caution myself in saying this, is that with OPS1 and with
OPM1, because OPS1 was recently graduating, I feel that sometimes the newness of trying to be
a leader for the owner’s perspective is the newness and he is still in learning mode. I think he is

364

doing great. I think they are trying to collect and find products that are possibly donation process
and a lot of this is just new and how you even do that? Some of that sophistication of managing a
project hasn’t come yet. I think it will. I think between OPM1 and OPS1, it’s a new entity.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:55 [We also have an administrative..]
(9:1333-9:2077) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
We also have an administrative person in our office. That person is taking our notes and putting
them on paper. She got a few things but not completely involved. We can then communicate
with those as well. That person was not fully engaged yet. Then we have another person at the
end would have got more involved and would have been our construction administrator. In an
IPD I’m not sure how involved that person would get. They typically would go out to the site
during construction from an architecture firm perspective, they are looking at it to make sure the
design thing is followed and there is no major gap in constructability. In a IPD, I don’t know that
would happen in the same way, could also be taking as an equal role.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:51 [Challenge wise. Did you try to..] (8:9418:1485) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge]
Challenge wise. Did you try to adopt any new ideas that your organization was not familiar
within this project?
AR1- Do you mean for the project process or are you saying have we just learn something new
that
we didn’t normally do?
UR1- yeah…
AR1- I think there was a number of products we investigated on this project that are always a
learning experience.
UR1- process wise..?
AR1- Well, because IPD is new to us, I think that is going to be a new challenge force but I
don’t think we implementing anything new at the beginning yet.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:52 [AR1- We were waiting for the bas..]
(8:1567-8:1975) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
AR1- We were waiting for the basic contract from XC1 and we never saw that. I had reviewed
the contract words and a few contractual things there was different. It’s the liability of a project
and how is an architecture firm ensured. It’s different on an IPD. Those things we would
probably have to work our way through a little bit.
UR1- We didn’t get to the negotiation portion yet?
AR1- No, we never,
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:58 [AR1- I would say our organizatio..]
(10:1-10:2062) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment to IPD process]
AR1- I would say our organization is willing, but I don't think it would be foremost… Everyone
wants to try something new when the economy is not robust. This project was very time

365

consuming and the economy is not very robust, I think the process would probably not do well as
fast tracked job. And a lot of projects we tend to get right now, they can be in the ground in six
month. That was probably whatever other huddles at the very beginning on this job that we all
remember “The project need to be built by August, so it was to be open for school.” Am I wrong?
Or we considered in May for summer. We were trying to get it done by may so it could have
summer sessions. Because there is too much of learn curves of IPD, all the players are new. It
won’t happen quickly.
AR2- I don’t think the delay in the schedule was because of IPD. I think it was because we need
to secure some of the donors. It was taking a lot of time. We switched to multiple donors…. We
confirmed to certain donors that kind of backed out afterwards. It wasn’t just like that IPD is the
anchor and slowing us down. It was really a process that we are trying to get donation, donated
material.
AR1- I would say if we had another project where a lot of the product could be a donation we
would probably not suggest to use IPD. [Laugh…]
AR2- I don’t think the IPD process contributed at all to the problem of let’s say finding donators
working around donators and so on.
AR1- I think the IPD process helped bring products to like to be used in the building, but I don’t
necessary think it’s a proper tool to provide donors.
AR2- I don’t think it had negative impact on the project. I think it was helpful in a lot of ways.
Some of the benefits it provided are still part of the project. I just really don’t think …
AR1- I don’t think it helped or hindered either way. We had probably four different skins in the
building, brick, metal… all those different choices had nothing to do with IPD. I just think the
donation process has caused the problem.
General Contractor
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:2 [Philosophy. We are brought ver..]
(2:976-2:1568) (Super)
Codes: [General Contractor] [Team member IPD experience]
Philosophy. We are brought very early in the design process. We worked definitely as a team and
very transparent approach to bring the best value for the client by analyze the systems understand
the cost and make sure we are watching the drawings as design is developed to make sure that it
stays in concert with budget that established. And the constructability is also watched. We called
it a negotiation projects or CM agreement in some cases. IPD does take that a step a little further
by aligning all the parties with their financial goals, but we have not had that project yet.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:3 [CM at risk and very much desig..] (3:1223:335) (Super)
Codes: [General Contractor] [Team member IPD experience]
CM at risk and very much design build relationships but the contracts have not been design build.
We have not held design build contract. It’s always been the separate contract with the architect
and the owner.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:28 [Did do try to adopt or accept ..]
(11:1468-11:2579) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge] [Reward structure_incentives] [Culture Fit]

366

Did do try to adopt or accept some new ideas which your organization is not familiar with in this
project? What are they?
Yes. The idea behind compensation layer and aligning all of the players with incentives is
something that we are going to continue to promote in even non IPD project. I think there is
some value there. I think there is something there that I can really get the design, construction
and ownership team alignment. If you don’t have the financial alignment, your alignment is
really about the wanting to maintain a great relationship will result in the teamwork together in
the next job. But you also add this Compensation layer to it and to put your fee at risk, there is
really solid connection that adds to that.
2) Did you encourage the members of your organization to challenge the existing mechanism
with this IPD project and provide some new methods or ideas to this project? How did that go?
Yes
3) Do you think challenging existing mechanism can contribute to the performance of this
project? How? Do you have any examples from the project so far? Yes
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:15 [Who took part in what major de..]
(5:2616-5:2715) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
Who took part in what major decision making in this project?
The final decisions were made by OPM1.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:7 [1 email 2 phone call 3 meeting..]
(3:1975-3:2640) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
1 email 2 phone call 3 meeting. Web-based tool? We actually internally here have been looking
at different system, because we hope to operate a construction management software to a new
system that have web-based capabilities So far we have not found the systems that meets all of
our needs. During that process on this project is when we were investigating and trying to decide
which direction we were going to go internally on that. Since then we were settled on separate
web-based systems that we were using for many of our projects which we could put this on as
well. At the same time this project had not quite got to that where it is necessary to.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:23 [Is there anything you want to ..] (8:1288:236) (Super)
Codes: [Confidence in project management]
Is there anything you want to share about confidence in project management? Everyone felt very
comfortable.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:5 [By the true IPD process, we al..] (3:10263:1280) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
By the true IPD process, we all would have been working together before AR1 even put the first
design on the table to OPM1. We all would have been on the team a little bit earlier and the goal
would have been established before it was even designed.

367

P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:12 [Here because we were brought a..]
(4:1947-4:2064) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
Here because we were brought a little bit later than the design is already in motion conceptually
fairly far along .
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:25 [We were early in the process i..] (11:11811:202) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
We were early in the process in some ways but late to the IPD process in other ways.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:34 [In the true IPD process, where..] (9:99:273) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
In the true IPD process, where budget schedule and quality goals established even before things
are start to be drawn. That would be a significant different. Usually there are couple of month for
owner and designer to work on the bid before GC is get involved.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:4 [OPM1 did a great job in establi..] (3:6193:684) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
OPM1 did a great job in establishing the proper relationship early.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:8 [To your best knowledge, why is..]
(4:326-4:1034) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Owner][Team’s IPD experience]

To your best knowledge, why is IPD being pursued in this project? The Design Supplier was the
main driver behind that. OPM1 was not familiar with the process necessarily when he was
involved ??? in the project. Donation, time.
2) What were your motivations (individual aspect and organizational aspect) to join this IPD
project?
It is new in the industry. We’d like to be a part of it We wanted to learn, experiment and
understand. You were on board because of IPD or Demonstration Building? The biggest one is
that it was demonstration building it was fairly unique building. It was a great opportunity for us
to try the project in State A to see if we might want to pursue additional work in State A.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:31 [We were very committed to it. ..] (8:6078:816) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
We were very committed to it. From the beginning I was skeptical that that wasn’t the best
approach for this project based on when we all enter the team and based on the size and
relatively effort around IPD.

368

P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:33 [Really what we were doing is j..]
(8:1529-8:1926) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
Really what we were doing is just getting pricing and ideas from them based on initial set of
drawings with no commitment. Very little resistance. It is not a real project for them yet. They
know they are going to have to ultimately put in the hard work to bid it later. You have to careful
about how the effort put in by them ,donating their time basically translates to accurate numbers.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:10 [They need to be really joint c..]
(4:1548-4:1725) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
They need to be really joint closely, they need to work together more collaboratively, you would
hope that you develop a strong relationship that we carry to the next project.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:35 [Process Planning-Design Charre..]
(9:629-9:672) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Process Planning-Design: Charrettes ☐ 4
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:38 [Shared Risk ? 3] (9:789-9:805) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Shared Risk: ☐ 3
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:36 [Set based Design-Early Contrib..]
(9:702-9:744) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Set based Design-Early Contribution: ☐ 4
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:39 [Performance Compensation ? 4 B..]
(9:833-9:907) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Performance Compensation: ☐ 4
Behavior Compensation Evaluation: ☐ 4
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:40 [Project Documentation Manageme..]
(9:995-9:1045) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Project Documentation Management Software: ☐ 3
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:42 [IPD Training ? 3] (9:1112-9:1129)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
IPD Training: ☐ 3
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:43 [Project Steward ? 3] (9:1189-9:1209)
(Super)
369

Codes:[Culture fit]
Project Steward: ☐ 3 "
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:24 [To what extent are members of ..]
(10:1224-10:1861) (Super)
Codes: [Monitor]
To what extent are members of your team encouraged to monitor those factors? How are
members encouraged?
I did not bring them into the process. They were involved a bit and attended the first IPD section
etc. Certainly it will happen when we got a little further in the project. Pitfalls? In the early stage
there are a lot of subject responsibilities, subjective understanding of information. A lot of
problem can happen is those things are properly communicated back and forth to additional team
members. Here because I handled the whole process on our end and we did not really have that
opportunity for that break down.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:22 [Is there a project leader in t..] (7:27658:121) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Is there a project leader in this project to manage information exchange on a regular basis? [If
yes= How is it conducted?]
OPS1. We didn't do anything in this process that was necessarily different or enhance than a non
IPD process.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:28 [Did do try to adopt or accept ..]
(11:1468-11:2579) (Super)
Codes: [Challenge] [Reward structure_incentives] [Culture Fit]
Did do try to adopt or accept some new ideas which your organization is not familiar with in this
project? What are they?
Yes. The idea behind compensation layer and aligning all of the players with incentives is
something that we are going to continue to promote in even non IPD project. I think there is
some value there. I think there is something there that I can really get the design, construction
and ownership team alignment. If you don’t have the financial alignment, your alignment is
really about the wanting to maintain a great relationship will result in the teamwork together in
the next job. But you also add this Compensation layer to it and to put your fee at risk, there is
really solid connection that adds to that.
2) Did you encourage the members of your organization to challenge the existing mechanism
with this IPD project and provide some new methods or ideas to this project? How did that go?
Yes
3) Do you think challenging existing mechanism can contribute to the performance of this
project? How? Do you have any examples from the project so far? Yes
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:48 [In what ways has IPD contribut..]
(13:1024-13:1147) (Super)
Codes: [Problem Addressed]
In what ways has IPD contributed to your positive or negative perceptions about this project and
process flow? Positively

370

"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:47 [How satisfied are you with the..]
(13:409-13:459) (Super)
Codes: [Participants Satisfaction]
How satisfied are you with the overall process? Yes
Design Supplier
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:24 [IPD Training ? 3 Sessions ? 3-..]
(10:777-10:813) (Super)
Codes: [Training]
IPD Training: ☐ 3
Sessions: ☐ 3-4
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:5 [To your best knowledge, why wa..]
(4:39-4:908) (Super)
Codes: [Motivator_Market]
To your best knowledge, why was IPD being pursued in this project?
SPM1- I think IPD was first referred to it because our founder’s son who is now retired still
does a lot of work with the State of State A with businesses and he and OPM1 are colleagues on
different boards, in terms of economy and business development so I think when he and OPM1
started talking about OPM1’s vision under the organization, OPM1 is building support for his
vision, that’s when SEM said to him “If you’re going to do this sustainable project you should
really look at incorporating IPD into this” because it will further strengthen your story. So it
really came into us on more of a personal I mean just basically got a call one day and say you
need to be in City A, because this gentleman wants to go IPD. So it came more from an
executive level. He is our champion.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:24 (2) [IPD Training ? 3 Sessions ? 3-..]
(10:777-10:813) (Super)
Codes: [Information sharing mechanism]
Project Meetings: ☐ 3-4
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:18 [UR1- So how about now? Has
your ..] (9:723-9:1199) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Financial Transparency]
UR1- So how about now? Has your perception change so far?
SPM1- I don’t think at this point… I think the reality is unless OPM1 comes back to us with a
different scope… I think we could still initiate an IPD successfully on this but it has to be where
there is a lot more transparency on the up front in terms of this is the money I have… and again I
put us in the in the category of failing to determine that early enough. I think should have taken
the post much earlier.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:17 [SPM1- I’d say I was probably
75% ..] (9:173-9:720) (Super)
Codes: [Confidence in project management]

371

SPM1- I’d say I was probably 75% confident at the onset. Especially with OPS1, it’s just like
wow he has got it, he wants to run with this, he is enthusiastic, we are going to do this. OPM1
was a very engaged owner. I was very confident this is a good start. That started backsliding a
little bit once we started to not meet deliverables in terms of expected budget, discrepancies
between the reality of what the cost would be. So then they started sliding back. But I would say
going up front I was 75% to 80% thinking this was going to go.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:20 [Process Planning-Design Charre..]
(10:267-10:339) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Phase of involvement]
Process Planning-Design
Charrettes: ☐ Project: 2: Organization: 5
Comment: G Culture fit; N Phase of involvement, the conceptual design was finished when the
Charrettes happened
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:21 [Set based Design-Early Contrib..]
(10:368-10:410) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of Inovlvement]
Set based Design-Early Contribution ☐ 2"
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:14 [SPM1- Just because you have
confl..] (7:2215-8:211) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
SPM1- Just because you have conflict doesn’t mean you don’t have trust. It’s how you resolve
the issue. I expect to have conflict on a project, that’s healthy, that’s even healthier when you
resolve together as a team. Where they break down is when decisions were made without team’s
input or your find out about it after the fact. It could be unintentional, it could be a haste type of
thing but when you do that, it does create impediment to having a trust based team. So that needs
to be driven all the time to continue that mechanism work(?). Developing and building on that
trust, it has to have total transparency. If you don’t have that, you are not going to have a trust
based team.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:16 [I’d say the less devoted was… ..]
(8:1788-8:2642) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
I’d say the less devoted was… I wouldn’t say devoted, but I think what happened at least with
myself and some of my colleagues internally is when we started seeing some of the little cracks
we started having our questions in terms of feasibility and we backed off a little bit, because we
saw some of the red flag, and we started thinking, OK how much do we invest in it. Do we have
other projects that are progressing forward and they want to do this. How much do we allocate
time to a project where we think is highly likely to not proceed. In terms of devotion, again, I am
not sure if it is the right word, commitment, I have no
question that the other partners were committed. I think The Design Supplier at some point was
committed but they started backing up thinking that this might not go ahead. So the reality of that
kind of downed on us.

372

"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:4 [I think part of it again is cu..]
(3:1811-3:2125) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
I think part of it again is cultural, in the Midwest, I am not from here, but everybody is so afraid
of offending somebody that they are too bold or too… requiring information is just not polite.
And I think you need a lot more of that understanding and we could present that to get more
valid information.
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:19 [SPM1- Here internally, I work wit..]
(9:1439-9:2143) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
SPM1- Here internally, I work with a very large organization. It was a tougher sell internally,
believe or not, even with a strong business case but it’s more difficult to get people to make
sightful changes when it involves millions of dollars especially in this economy. I think the
culture was right because OPM1 has a vision in sustainability and high performance and great
partners, I mean, who wouldn’t want UNIVERSITY S as a partner… so I think in terms of
culture The Design Supplier likes to align themselves with visionaries… so I think that culture
was a fit. So I’d say culturally we were aligned, because we both had the right or the same goals
going forward. It’s just the perceptions were a little off
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:23 [Relational Contract ? 4] (10:72510:750) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Relational Contract: ☐ 4
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:25 [Project Steward ? 4] (10:85610:876) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
Project Steward: ☐ 4

Negative
Owner
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:1 [What, if any, prior experience..] (2:5772:681) (Super)
Codes: [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
What, if any, prior experiences have you had in IPD projects (either philosophy or contractual)
before?
Comment: P, The owner did not have any IPD experience
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:3 [What, if any prior projects ha..] (2:16142:1813) (Super)
Codes: [Owner] [Team member IPD experience]
What, if any prior projects have you use collaborative deliver methods (i.e., partnering, designbuild)?
Sustainable design build. If you have a partner, they all have to be interaction together.
Comment: P The owner is not satisfied with the design build experience he had before.
373

P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:6 [You can be the best writer in ..] (3:999-3:1741)
(Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms] [Remove Obstacles]
You can be the best writer in the world, but it’s very hard to convey a nuanced situation in an
email. I am also in written to correspondence and record in fact. I am really a proponent of that.
It’s kind of verbal communication might have been better. But then I could never fully resolve
myself. That one-on-one verbal communication was somehow violating the spirit of IPD.
Through email you could CC everybody and said OK, I have made a team thing. There is a
couple of times that I want to pick up the phone and call SPM1 and say SPM1 here is what’s
going on. And I did that a couple of times and I could have done that more. But then I am
keeping people out of the loop. I can’t schedule a conference call of 10 minutes.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:23 [We saw benefits in that becaus..] (7:3787:760) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
We saw benefits in that because that was a big culture fit. We saw some benefit of exposure in
City B, to a higher profile company. So we saw the value on that. I think in the end it wasn’t
really a The GC problem. It was a level of company problem. That level of contractor that we
were dealing with just couldn’t deliver the product for earning less than $250,000 premium.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:24 [And a little bit of experts pr..] (7:786-7:889)
(Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
And a little bit of experts problem. Because we double our experts. In house experts: OPM2,
OPM1, OPS1.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:47 [I don’t think even that would ..] (13:166913:1744) (Super)
Codes: [Remove obstacles]
No negotiation procedure? I don’t think even that would help. Just conflicting in organizational
goals
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:13 [What were the general processe..] (5:135:367) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
What were the general processes followed and the factors considered to making important
decisions in this project? The selection of contractor That was a very methodical process. In the
process by which The Design Supplier took us through in that , that lead to a very good fit for a
builder except to the point we didn’t realize it was a bad financial model.
Comment: P OPM1 said GC selection was the ONLY decision they made as a team. And None
of them realize the financial model issue at the beginning.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:14 [Contract- administrator (Howar..] (5:3715:711) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]

374

Contract- administrator (XC1) It was very clear that The Design Supplier’s preference was we
need to use that. It’s very expensive. It was 10% of the cost of what The Design Supplier donated.
It’s just the cost of the donation. That wasn’t really a joint decision, that was almost, like the
selection of IPD itself, that was kind of what came with The Design Supplier.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:15 [To your best knowledge, why is..] (3:22783:2652) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
To your best knowledge, why is IPD being pursued in this project?
The reason is because it was the condition of The Design Supplier contribution to the project.
They originally had a conditional support. They said “ OPM1, we will do all this for Project B,
provided you implement and allow us to document the study in IPD process. So that was
absolute condition.
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:5 [We were trying to schedule stu..] (3:8233:955) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
We were trying to schedule stuff with The Design Supplier and they kept pushing it back just
because of scheduling, they can’t get together.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:44 [Use cost Project control. Here..] (10:101110:1647) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Manage]
Use cost Project control. Here is where it failed. This is kind of The GC’s fault. We did
everything to reduce the cost. But those were the only cost reductions we had. We reduced the
scope of the buildings, we changed the materials. Nothing came from The GC. What if we did
this differently. But it did with the new contractor. They have some ideas that save us a lot of
money. The GC were great technicians. When AR1 and I made changes to reduce the scope of
the project, they could determine how much it would save us. But that’s all it was. In that sense,
they were just accounts. We didn’t see any value added (from The GC).
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:48 [The Design Supplier just dropped out the I..]
(13:981-13:1131) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
The Design Supplier just dropped out the IPD program. Essentially, the whole teams thing is
breaking down. She (SPM1) just thought it isn’t working as an IPD.
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:4 [You quit IPD, but were you sat..] (2:18193:313) (Super)
Codes: [Participants Satisfaction] [Culture fit]
You quit IPD, but were you satisfied with the skill levels of the project participants or not
(incentives/incentives management efforts to remove obstacles for implement)?
I think the team was overqualified in the project. Yes I was satisfied, but that level of
sophistication get in the way of the actual delivery of a fairly simple building. It is completely
depended on the complexity of the project. If this were an complex project, it would have an
different answer.

375

P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:10 [Different motivations of team ..] (4:12554:1486) (Super)
Codes: [Culture fit]
Different motivations of team members. I think The Design Supplier is a very deliberate big
organization, very rational, very methodical. Sometimes we are ready fire aim kind of people.
We are not used to institutionalizing decision making.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:11 [We were on the site every day...] (4:14884:1742) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
We were on the site every day. So we were very hand-on owner-developer. Whereas The Design
Supplier was trying to bring in a level of sophistication with building contractor that we just
didn’t need. There is a significant financial premium to be paid for that.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:33 [Reduce risk and share risk I c..] (8:664-8:750)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
Reduce risk and share risk: I called it increasing my risk by engaging in IPD process.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:34 [Do you think you were sharing ..] (8:7548:1134) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Reword Structure_risk pool]
Do you think you were sharing the risk by all?
No. The architect and contract get their cost covered. Their profits were at risk. But I had more
than that at risk which is fair. That’s why I do what I do and they do what they do. I also have an
unlimited reward. Their reward is very limited. The notions of shared risk is a little oversold
from my perspective as an owner.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:36 [The relational contract: I nev..] (8:1291-9:95)
(Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
The relational contract: I never signed one. That was never executed. Because we never had any
number to put in. In theory? No, it was more a leap of faith. It was not a good fit for our
organization.
"P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:39 [SPM1 was the IPD project stew..] (9:3839:656) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
SPM1 was the IPD project steward.
Do you think it is fit to have her has a good communicator?
No. Because she is a little intimidating. She is very capable, very bright, very personable???,
very strong willed. She said things indirectly that are in essence orders.
P17: Structured interview with Owner.pdf - 17:44 [Use cost Project control. Here..] (10:101110:1647) (Super)

376

Codes: [Commitment] [Manage]
Use cost Project control. Here is where it failed. This is kind of The GC’s fault. We did
everything to reduce the cost. But those were the only cost reductions we had. We reduced the
scope of the buildings, we changed the materials. Nothing came from The GC. What if we did
this differently. But it did with the new contractor. They have some ideas that save us a lot of
money. The GC were great technicians. When AR1 and I made changes to reduce the scope of
the project, they could determine how much it would save us. But that’s all it was. In that sense,
they were just accounts. We didn’t see any value added (from The GC).
Architect
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:22 [I think that for PM1 and for ..] (2:18412:1943) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
I think that for PM1 and for The GC, not having work with OPM1 before, their personality is
fabulous.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:3 [I think The GC could have been..]
(1:2124-1:2225) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
I think The GC could have been a great asset to the team. I just think distance was a huge factor.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:4 [The GC is from the Midwest, bu..]
(1:2731-1:3452) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Remove Obstacles]
The GC is from the Midwest, but I think a larger firm out of City B would have done a fabulous
job building the building and the quality would have been there. But I think the distance of trying
to be comfortable with the climate of construction in State A, difficult. Even though he may have
got some preliminary bids from people locally, I’m not sure because of his distance or nonfamiliarity with the contractors. Even though we gave them all names, we give them at least two
to three names of each different categories for bidding, with his unfamiliarity, connections and
experiences with these people, I don’t feel that it was easy for them to dial down the numbers to
where they could have been.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:7 [G- I am trying to get somethin..] (2:15382:2310) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
AR1- I am trying to get something out that I think has made this more difficult for the IPD. That
has been the donation factor. It’s complicated the whole effort. It’s complicating the effort, it’s
still difficult. Because it’s a moving target and a moving target for a contractor is not
comfortable. I think that for PM1 and for The GC, not having work with OPM1 before, their
personality is fabulous. I don’t think there is anybody that had a problem. It is more the moving
target, you know… one day the skin is donated and the next day it’s not; roof is donated by this
company and now it’s ??? something else. You know all those factors have caused this project to
be still kind of a roller coaster a little bit. I think it’s a smaller roller coaster now.

377

P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:16 [Any obstacles we can talk abou..]
(3:2266-3:2547) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
Any obstacles we can talk about in team procurement, in choosing IPD for this project, or about
risk sharing.. any obstacles in the IPD process and the project itself?
AR2- The biggest obstacle was the size of the project.
UR1- The size was not a good fit for IPD?
AR1- Its small.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:49 [AR2 – the scalability .. the siz..] (8:18:343) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Remove Obstacles]
AR2 – the scalability .. the size of the project, I don’t think anybody one person maybe outside
of the PROJECT B’s team was solely dedicated to this project. It was hard to have this daily
huddles or weekly meetings, there may have been weeks, I don’t have even engaged in the
process at all.
AR1- Because we are sitting and waiting for pricing
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:50 [AR2- The scale of the project wa..]
(8:349-8:934) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
AR2- The scale of the project was the main hurdle f this project. The call is that the resurgence
of the scale issues kind of manifesting all these waste.
AR1- It could also have been only one of three projects The GC was working on or one of the
three projects were working on. Then I can set a time frame of doing a daily huddle might make
some sense. But as AR2 was saying, when it’s not going to the same process of a normal project,
it’s taking longer. The scale is so small, in a bigger firm or a bigger contractor, it’s not the focus
of 100% percent of one individual.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:5 [I think if we were doing a bui..] (2:2242:648) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
I think if we were doing a building closer to where they were located they would have been a
fabulous choice. I think the quality probably is superior to the contractors in City C or in West
State A. But I also think that may also be a factor in it as well. I’m not sure that this building has
the sophistication that is necessary that would have been fit in the middle of downtown City B, a
language different.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:9 [When it became economically un..]
(2:3330-2:3530) (Super)
Codes: [Remove obstacles]
When it became economically unfeasible to do it, because of I think in this size of a project. I am
not sure that that process work as easily when you got an owner that’s so driven by the dollars.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:47 [UR1- For example, commitment log..]
(7:2869-7:3413) (Super)

378

Codes: [Manage] [Remove obstacles]
UR1- For example, commitment logs, daily huddles, they never used, weekly meetings, were not
used.
AR1- Not yet. One thing I would probably make a suggestion about is that I know SPM1 talked
a lot about doing daily huddles. Daily huddles on a 5400 sf building would have absolutely been,
to me, a waste of time.
UR1- Okay
AR1- if you’re doing a project 200,000 sf and you made decision on a daily bases or every
Thursday, their project could handle a 15 minutes huddle, but the process for an IPD was lost on
the project of this small "
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:21 [I think we had too big of a ga..] (4:11254:1206) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
I think we had too big of a gap of the cost of the building and the true budget.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:43 [Can you talk about any example..]
(7:392-7:1115) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Monitor] [Information sharing mechanism]
Can you talk about any examples of the problems of monitoring or the advantages of monitoring
the communications?
AR1- I think, that one thing that would have helped, I think it was starting, but it hasn’t got there
yet. In an IPD there have be one main communicator, and everything go through that person.
UR1- Do you mean project steward kind of a person?
AR1- It’s different than the project management, more of a communication steward, I know we
are starting to be done with???, I don’t know how far it got.. It seems that there needed to be a
web-based or website where everything got housed. All you did is getting this one email out.
Everything is being put on this website. It hadn’t got far enough yet.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:44 [AR2- One of the things that I ha..]
(7:1118-7:1928) (Super)
Codes: [Information Sharing Mechanisms]
AR2- One of the things that I have looked at successful IPD’s have implemented web based
collaboration tool, that isn’t internal to any of the organization contract party, but it is kind of
outside of everything and everyone is plugging into and then kind of exports communication to
all (participants). You can do communication management. It’s very valuable as a tool. I don’t
think it was ever developed. I only think it’s a master list of everybody like a project team, like a
spread sheet was developed for these, that had all the different players and communication, how
to get hold of them and all those sort of stuff. So I kind of sometimes felt left in the dark… It was
like who am I supposed to be talking to, who might supposed to be including in this email
AR1- and players were changed
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:27 [I think if the budget was alig..] (5:7655:1325) (Super)
Codes: [Confidence in project management]

379

I think if the budget was aligned better and we know what would be donated early on. I think the
process took so much time we kind of lost sight of the process.
UR1- That’s true
AR1- You know what I mean? It took place over holidays and the budgeting and all that with
The GC and all the donation process took a while to come to fruition. I think the IPD typically
would be a shorter constraint of time and some of that also accentuated the need to move to a
typical time line because we were losing sight of when the building would actually get built.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:18 [G- No. Oh well, I think anothe..]
(3:3009-3:3878) (Super)
Codes: [Trust]
AR1- No. Oh well, I think another thing. Do you know there was another bidder in between? Did
you know that?
UR1- No
AR1- The GC knew about that, PM1 said “if you want to get a local contractor to look at this, it
might be a good idea” just to make yourself feel better in the bidding process so they asked
Contractor 2 which was one of the interviewers that was not chosen, and I don’t know where that
bid came out at. I never saw. The next person that came into the play came from… I believe they
were introduced by OPM2 DeCam. Because he kept saying they had done a lot of real estate
projects and design-build. I think the mentality of where they really wanted to head is more of a
design-build contractor. It’s very similar to an IPD. You are trying to be collaborative and figure
out how you are going to build the project when you know the budget first.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:19 [I think the other problem with..]
(3:3880-3:4387) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment]
I think the other problem with the GC, maybe knew sort of the budget but was never driving the
design, the cost or the materials to that budget. I think in a true IPD you might probably know
budget more up to front and all the parties are working toward that same goal of a nice building
and a budget. I think the reason why the new contractor has been selected is that they are more in
that design-build mentality where they are going to try to work the materials and contractions
around more of a budget.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:4 [The GC is from the Midwest, bu..]
(1:2731-1:3452) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit] [Remove Obstacles]
The GC is from the Midwest, but I think a larger firm out of City B would have done a fabulous
job building the building and the quality would have been there. But I think the distance of trying
to be comfortable with the climate of construction in State A, difficult. Even though he may have
got some preliminary bids from people locally, I’m not sure because of his distance or nonfamiliarity with the contractors. Even though we gave them all names, we give them at least two
to three names of each different categories for bidding, with his unfamiliarity, connections and
experiences with these people, I don’t feel that it was easy for them to dial down the numbers to
where they could have been.

380

P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:8 [The GC is kind of a different,..] (2:23712:2699) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
The GC is kind of a different, City B has a different culture, the building culture. I think that was
a part of the break down. they had a different set of standard, a different set of normal, the
project teams. It just made it difficult, I think they were a very good choice, but not for this
project, not this location.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:11 [I think OPM1… He has known me f..]
(2:3880-2:4233) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
I think OPM1… He has known me for a long time. I think he likes to see some design before he
ever puts a number before he put a number to it. He likes the design process and part of the IPD
process is to do the design as a whole group that had already taken place. I think some of that
lost the spark. Because that was one of his favorite parts.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:17 [I think it would have made mor..]
(3:2549-3:2835) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
I think it would have made more sense to have all three of the tri-add of this project to be within
probably within a two-hour time period. I don’t think the distance for The GC was the issue, I
think it was the distance of the culture difference. It wasn’t the distance in travel.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:28 [How much of a fit are these in..] (5:28015:3026) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
How much of a fit are these in the culture of your organization in a Likert scale of 1 – 5 (1: not
fit at all; 5: fit perfectly) so: reduce risk, for example use contractually for risk management.
AR1- I’d say low, like a 2
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:43 [Can you talk about any example..]
(7:392-7:1115) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Monitor] [Information sharing mechanism]
Can you talk about any examples of the problems of monitoring or the advantages of
monitoring the communications?
AR1- I think, that one thing that would have helped, I think it was starting, but it hasn’t got there
yet. In an IPD there have be one main communicator, and everything go through that person.
UR1- Do you mean project steward kind of a person?
AR1- It’s different than the project management, more of a communication steward, I know we
are starting to be done with???, I don’t know how far it got.. It seems that there needed to be a
web-based or website where everything got housed. All you did is getting this one email out.
Everything is being put on this website. It hadn’t got far enough yet.
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:43 [Can you talk about any example..]
(7:392-7:1115) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Monitor] [Information sharing mechanism]

381

Can you talk about any examples of the problems of monitoring or the advantages of monitoring
the communications?
AR1- I think, that one thing that would have helped, I think it was starting, but it hasn’t got there
yet. In an IPD there have be one main communicator, and everything go through that person.
UR1- Do you mean project steward kind of a person?
AR1- It’s different than the project management, more of a communication steward, I know we
are starting to be done with???, I don’t know how far it got.. It seems that there needed to be a
web-based or website where everything got housed. All you did is getting this one email out.
Everything is being put on this website. It hadn’t got far enough yet.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:46 [UR1- Let me ask you something ab..]
(7:2142-7:2865) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
UR1- Let me ask you something about managing. What strategies do you use to improve the
performance of teams normally and what did you use in terms of strategies here in this project
for example, schedules, project controls…
AR1- If the process was fully going to be a IPD we would have organized a timeline where we
would say every week we’ll have an hour conference call and all these parties need to be part of
that period.
UR1- but that didn’t happened…
AR1- It did not happened. I think the time frame of the stretching of going to the donation
through that off of the loop, because we were doing that… First got through the process of the
design, started to look at the budget we ??? regularly trying to talk.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:47 [UR1- For example, commitment log..]
(7:2869-7:3413) (Super)
Codes: [Manage] [Remove obstacles]
UR1- For example, commitment logs, daily huddles, they never used, weekly meetings, were not
used.
AR1- Not yet. One thing I would probably make a suggestion about is that I know SPM1 talked
a lot about doing daily huddles. Daily huddles on a 5400 sf building would have absolutely been,
to me, a waste of time.
UR1- Okay
AR1- if you’re doing a project 200,000 sf and you made decision on a daily bases or every
Thursday, their project could handle a 15 minutes huddle, but the process for an IPD was lost on
the project of this small
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:48 [daily email versus daily call ..] (7:35017:3751) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
daily email versus daily call when the project is not taking more than 10% of our persons’ time
in their work load, that’s a lot of , you know, you have to wait for ten people to get on the phone.
It’s not 15 minutes. It’s half an hour or an hour.
P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:49 [AR2 – the scalability .. the siz..] (8:18:343) (Super)

382

Codes: [Manage] [Remove Obstacles]
AR2 – the scalability .. the size of the project, I don’t think anybody one person maybe outside
of the PROJECT B’s team was solely dedicated to this project. It was hard to have this daily
huddles or weekly meetings, there may have been weeks, I don’t have even engaged in the
process at all.
AR1- Because we are sitting and waiting for pricing
"P18: Structured Interview with Architects.pdf - 18:45 [During different donations, ev..]
(7:1965-7:2139) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
During different donations, everybody when they sign up to get product, they all want some sort
of say in the process and it’s challenging too to navigate through all that.
General Contractor
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:8 [To your best knowledge, why is..]
(4:326-4:1034) (Super)
Codes: [Commitment] [Owner][Team’s IPD experience]
To your best knowledge, why is IPD being pursued in this project? The Design Supplier was the
main driver behind that. OPM1 was not familiar with the process necessarily when he was
involved ??? in the project. Donation, time.
2) What were your motivations (individual aspect and organizational aspect) to join this IPD
project?
It is new in the industry. We’d like to be a part of it We wanted to learn, experiment and
understand. You were on board because of IPD or Demonstration Building? The biggest one is
that it was demonstration building it was fairly unique building. It was a great opportunity for us
to try the project in State A to see if we might want to pursue additional work in State A.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:1 [For a project of that size, we..] (2:1462:433) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
For a project of that size, we are probably not a good fit from the beginning to travel. The way
we approached it is a little bit more expensive. It does not translate to a project of that size. It
becomes a noticeable premium rather than just a minor premium when it’s a bigger job.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:6 [During preconstruction, we are..] (3:12823:1928) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles] [commitment]
During preconstruction, we are essentially billing by the hour. We never get reimbursed with
what we are owed for it. Actually, when you look at what you are going to put into the project up
front. It is a substantial amount of staff time. When that’s tagged on to the cost of the project that
they really want it to be under $ 1 million. It becomes a significant premium. With a fairly
simple building like this, you can cut to the chase a little bit faster with a traditional negotiate
approach. Everybody is still on board early, at the table early and transparent, but you are not
necessarily following every steps of IPD process.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:20 [It was all handled via verbal ..] (7:1987:1809) (Super)

383

Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
It was all handled via verbal communication between OPM1 and I and even AR1 at times. In the
numbers, I layout everything, all the details, how I estimated how I contract the numbers they’ve
got in. Everybody could see how it was all put together. I always welcome that they put codes on
it and give us a critical feedback on it. We always have to do that in team relationship like that.
From the time the initial numbers were on the table, there was clearly consternation between
OPM1’s office and AR1’s team about “ we should be paying less for this building” First of all I
am talking to all the subcontractors in State A that you recommended I talk to and getting pricing
from them based what is being drawn and described here.
Secondly, I said I would rather your curiosity be ??? early if you think you would like another
general contractor in State A that where you worked on regular bases to numbers on this so that
you can compare. Please do. If that switch had to be made, I’d rather it had be made earlier than
later. In the final round of pricing, they ultimately did that. I think they found that the numbers
were not significantly less, but when you take our general conditions and the amount of staff we
put on the project and the time of travel. On a small project like this virus a general contractor
that can do that project in the neighborhood they doesn’t have to put a full time field
superintendent on site because he has a superintendent doing other project in the area. The
premiums were enough and they realized that they had to go different direction.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:13 [The factors are very good poin..]
(5:455-5:1467) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned project goals]
The factors are very good points here because typically, factors like budget, scheduling and
quality level essentially drives the decisions made in the design of the project. Here the budget is
typically set by the amount of revenue you can gain. Here because that this was really something
that OPM1 was putting up the money for with other investors and something he knew would
really be just sort of a show piece and not something that he would get any kind of return on
investment for. I didn’t have that parameter 100%. It sort of revolve around OPM1 and his
feeling for what he really want this to be and how much he really want to spend. I think that’s a
little bit different than most of the project where most of the parameters are pretty well set and
pretty well confined. Here it was a little bit more subjective and really kind of entirely in
OPM1’s hands because I think in his mind he had a range of cost. It was only to spend based on
much bank he was going to get from the buck??? .
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:14 [I think everyone was very unif..]
(5:2063-5:2609) (Super)
Codes: [Phase of involvement]
I think everyone was very unified. Everybody is like ‘this is really going to a great building.
Then the reality cost is brought into it as it was a few month ago, we did our initial budget on it
after the IPD process had begun. It makes it very difficult to start to stripping away some of the
things that you were really thought great in the project. Unfortunately some of that had to happen
to get the numbers down to where it will be applaudable to OPM1. Both OPM1 and Designer
had to sacrifice some of the design to meet the budget.
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:32 [In the true sense of IPD, we d..] (8:13728:1526) (Super)

384

Codes: [Phase of involvement]
In the true sense of IPD, we didn’t get there. We had not brought on any subcontractors or
vendors that were going to participate in the IPD process with
P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:11 [What was unique in this case i..]
(4:1818-4:2186) (Super)
Codes: [Early involvement effectiveness]
What was unique in this case is that. Usually sizeable project have some baseline for cost even
before you begin to design it. Here because we were brought a little bit later than the design is
already in motion conceptually fairly far along . The building was unique, it wasn’t something
that you could go out and find comparable cost for comparable buildings on
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:6 [During preconstruction, we are..]
(3:1282-3:1928) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles] [commitment]
During preconstruction, we are essentially billing by the hour. We never get reimbursed with
what we are owed for it. Actually, when you look at what you are going to put into the project up
front. It is a substantial amount of staff time. When that’s tagged on to the cost of the project that
they really want it to be under $ 1 million. It becomes a significant premium. With a fairly
simple building like this, you can cut to the chase a little bit faster with a traditional negotiate
approach. Everybody is still on board early, at the table early and transparent, but you are not
necessarily following every steps of IPD process.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:26 [If this is a true IPD. We prob..] (11:20411:442) (Super)
Codes: [Manage]
If this is a true IPD. We probably would have probably have comprehensive preconstruction
schedule. We would have been meeting regularly and make sure we are on track of that schedule
and also make sure we were all on the same pages.
"P16: Structured interview with Contractor.pdf - 16:19 [There was a period of time a c..]
(7:1811-7:2229) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate]
There was a period of time a couple of weeks went by, I really hadn’t heard that much from the
team. I kind of suspected that at that time they kick me up of my operate and actually going out
for someone else. I finally did connect with OPM1. He was very upfront honest and very
gracious and said we have decided to go with one of our local contractor here just to keep it
simple now that it’s a simple building.
Design Supplier

"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:3 [You quit IPD, but were you sat..]
(3:580-3:999) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor][Architect]
You quit IPD, but were you satisfied with the skill levels of the project participants or not
(incentives/incentives management efforts to remove obstacles for implement)?

385

SPM1- I don’t think that it was the level. … because it’s so new, I wish people had had more
experience but I myself am still learning so it’s somewhat unfair of me to judge that and say I am
satisfied or not satisfied. It’s more of a reality.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:3 [You quit IPD, but were you sat..]
(3:580-3:999) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor][Architect]
You quit IPD, but were you satisfied with the skill levels of the project participants or not
(incentives/incentives management efforts to remove obstacles for implement)? SPM1- I don’t
think that it was the level. … because it’s so new, I wish people had had more experience but I
myself am still learning so it’s somewhat unfair of me to judge that and say I am satisfied or not
satisfied. It’s more of a reality.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:3 [You quit IPD, but were you sat..]
(3:580-3:999) (Super)
Codes: [Team member IPD experience] [Owner] [General Contractor][Architect]
You quit IPD, but were you satisfied with the skill levels of the project participants or not
(incentives/incentives management efforts to remove obstacles for implement)?
SPM1- I don’t think that it was the level. … because it’s so new, I wish people had had more
experience but I myself am still learning so it’s somewhat unfair of me to judge that and say I am
satisfied or not satisfied. It’s more of a reality.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:2 [To what extent have you worked..]
(3:69-3:160) (Super)
Codes: [Previous cooperation experience]
To what extent have you worked with the other parties in the project team before? SPM1- none
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:18 [UR1- So how about now? Has
your ..] (9:723-9:1199) (Super)
Codes: [Remove obsacles] [Financial Transparency]
UR1- So how about now? Has your perception change so far?
SPM1- I don’t think at this point… I think the reality is unless OPM1 comes back to us with a
different scope… I think we could still initiate an IPD successfully on this but it has to be where
there is a lot more transparency on the up front in terms of this is the money I have… and again I
put us in the in the category of failing to determine that early enough. I think should have taken
the post much earlier.
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:10 [SPM1- Especially for project of t..]
(6:464-6:719) (Super)
Codes: [Remove Obstacles]
SPM1- Especially for project of this size and it is interesting, I don’t quite get it yet, because I
haven’t work on the scale of the project as some of my colleagues have. They are telling me that
the larger projects are easier than the smaller projects."
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:9 [SPM1- We form a team like that. T..]
(5:2744-6:380) (Super)

386

Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [Decision Making System]
SPM1- We form a team like that. That is what you hold each other accountable, right? As far as
(?) we get into the project, they have… you know, not feasible options, that what you can discuss
together as a team, but before you even form the full team, you change the scale or scope of the
project which happened. Those went from… “OK. We are going to build this high performance
green building with IPD to get us there, by the way, we are going to bring in all the partners and
they are going to contribute, they are going to donate. That changed the scope.
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:11 [SPM1- The communication at this p..]
(6:1519-6:1789) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
SPM1- The communication at this point was, because we knew we had to build a team, it was
more on scheduled, “OK, this is the date. This is where we get together. This is where the
decision will be made. Those were defined by the owner, and already determined partners.
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:12 [To what extent was everyone in..]
(6:1949-7:375) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System]
To what extent was everyone in the project able to unify their different thoughts and perspectives
to reach final decisions on the project? If you were able to reach unity in your collective decision
making, how was this achieved?
SPM1- I think that was weak. I think where that happened was once the reality of the budget
came to light and alternative direction for taken. I don’t think the team has full awareness of that
anyway. All we knew is that the audit is being done, and the next thing we knew is that the
decision was made. If you are under IPD, you are part of that audit, you are part of making that
determination. This is preempted by the whole budget. This isn’t going to happen. You know, we
can’t cost this much money in alternative default plan. It’s not what we called IPD.
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:28 [SPM1- um, I don’t think… I think ..]
(12:333-12:846) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Negotiate]
SPM1- um, I don’t think… I think it could have been better. I don’t’ think it was terrible. I don’t
want to use the word “panic” But when the scale of the project in terms of budget didn’t align
with the owner’s expectations. I think a lot of decisions were made in haste and those
negotiations were probably done behind doors, close doors. That’s not my expectation in terms
of how to manage that but I think it was just circumstantial and related to lack of IPD experience
and the type of covert behaviors.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:7 [SPM1- For this project I think th..]
(5:9-5:1361) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals]
SPM1- For this project I think the obstacles were probably we started at a running start. We
should have assessed earlier what the owner’s familiarity was. We have to ???, because all we
heard the first time was “we want to have University S class here in May and June. We should
have probably assessed their readiness compare to their feasibility. I think that was one obstacle
that probably created a rocky start, because the perceptions were not aligned, the expectation

387

weren’t aligned. I think the first real understanding of that I came to City B session when the
topic of budget came up. I wasn’t there of course, I was in Toronto, but my colleagues said that
they could read that point that there was a huge gap in terms of expectations related to budget.
UR1- In terms of the budget, are you talking about the amount of the time and upfront cost that
needs to be devoted to IPD projects?
SPM1- I don’t know, but obviously with IPD, you do have of more a cost upfront. Because of
the investment upfront, that’s a better reward on the other end, but it was more in terms of
understanding to what the real cost are period. When you have an owner that think he can get a
high performance building with $100/ sf, his understanding and expectation and our
understanding to what is really going on in the build world were very far apart.
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:9 [SPM1- We form a team like that. T..]
(5:2744-6:380) (Super)
Codes: [Aligned Project Goals] [Decision Making System]
SPM1- We form a team like that. That is what you hold each other accountable, right? As far as
(?) we get into the project, they have… you know, not feasible options, that what you can discuss
together as a team, but before you even form the full team, you change the scale or scope of the
project which happened. Those went from… “OK. We are going to build this high performance
green building with IPD to get us there, by the way, we are going to bring in all the partners and
they are going to contribute, they are going to donate. That changed the scope.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:8 [SPM1- I don’t know, but obviously..]
(5:914-5:2408) (Super)
Codes: [Culture Fit]
SPM1- I don’t know, but obviously with IPD, you do have of more a cost upfront. Because of
the investment upfront, that’s a better reward on the other end, but it was more in terms of
understanding to what the real cost are period. When you have an owner that think he can get a
high performance building with $100/ sf, his understanding and expectation and our
understanding to what is really going on in the build world were very far apart.
UR1- So we’re not just talking about really budget in term of IPD but rather high performance
green buildings here?
SPM1- Well no, I think it all comes together, the cost is not skewed by IPD in this sense it was
just having a basic understanding to what it costs to build these types of a building. The
expectations the owner had did not equal to the cost of delivering that project would be. So then
there was a shift that IPD would be the main focus of this project. That’s why The Design
Supplier was in it. We knew it was worth well cost to support our sustainability story but then
when the costs of coming together in terms of what it would really be, one of the objectives of
the project or goals in seeking cosponsors and contributors definitely changed the tone of the
IPD. With IPD, one of the key components is that it is repeatable. You can’t repeat this with
other projects. To the level of contributors, that is not realistic to expect that other projects are
going to be able to go out and meet those types of contributions.
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:13 [What, if any, controversies ha..]
(7:385-7:2126) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate] [Sustainability]
What, if any, controversies have appeared in the project so far? How was it handled?

388

SPM1- One controversy was The Design Supplier being a part of this project was to bold for IPD
and we were donating products. Now when the pre-construction quotes were being done, I got an
email from OPM1 saying that “to cut costs we were going with the HVAC units on the roof.”
And that is totally contradictory to our raised floors are intended to do. Our product is intended
to run the HVAC under the floor. That was something that I had to push back on and say “ This
is not what the original agreement was. This was one thing. I am trying to think what the other
one was. There was a decision to cut costs which is very typical in other projects, people made
these value engineer decisions. But they are very short-sighted.
UR1- They are not value adding, actually.
SPM1- They are detracting because in making that quick decision to tear down budget, they
could be short-sighted in terms of long-term pay back on some of these original investments.
That is not unique to this project. That happened in many ways on “value-engineering”. People
just think they are going to cut costs and so there were a couple of those situations where in the
haste to bring this project within owner comfort of scale or budget. Some short-term decision
were determined that negatively impact the sustainability story. So those decisions can be made
via email, and then I responded back saying that “ Please understand that, you might think this is
cutting dollars here, but in the long run it’s going to cost you more in terms of either hard dollars,
or PR, or it wil negate the image of a high performance building. That can happen at many
projects.
P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:28 [SPM1- um, I don’t think… I think ..]
(12:333-12:846) (Super)
Codes: [Decision Making System] [Negotiate]
SPM1- um, I don’t think… I think it could have been better. I don’t’ think it was terrible. I don’t
want to use the word “panic” But when the scale of the project in terms of budget didn’t align
with the owner’s expectations. I think a lot of decisions were made in haste and those
negotiations were probably done behind doors, close doors. That’s not my expectation in terms
of how to manage that but I think it was just circumstantial and related to lack of IPD experience
and the type of covert behaviors
"P19: Structured Interview with Major Supplier.pdf - 19:13 [What, if any, controversies ha..]
(7:385-7:2126) (Super)
Codes: [Negotiate] [Sustainability]
What, if any, controversies have appeared in the project so far? How was it handled?
SPM1- One controversy was The Design Supplier being a part of this project was to bold for IPD
and we were donating products. Now when the pre-construction quotes were being done, I got an
email from OPM1 saying that “to cut costs we were going with the HVAC units on the roof.”
And that is totally contradictory to our raised floors are intended to do. Our product is intended
to run the HVAC under the floor. That was something that I had to push back on and say “ This
is not what the original agreement was. This was one thing. I am trying to think what the other
one was. There was a decision to cut costs which is very typical in other projects, people made
these value engineer decisions. But they are very short-sighted.
UR1- They are not value adding, actually.
SPM1- They are detracting because in making that quick decision to tear down budget, they
could be short-sighted in terms of long-term pay back on some of these original investments.
That is not unique to this project. That happened in many ways on “value-engineering”. People

389

just think they are going to cut costs and so there were a couple of those situations where in the
haste to bring this project within owner comfort of scale or budget. Some short-term decision
were determined that negatively impact the sustainability story. So those decisions can be made
via email, and then I responded back saying that “ Please understand that, you might think this is
cutting dollars here, but in the long run it’s going to cost you more in terms of either hard dollars,
or PR, or it will negate the image of a high performance building. That can happen at many
projects.

Not Given
There is no quotation under this category.

390

REFERENCES

391

REFERENCES

7 Group, Boecker, J, S. Horst, T. Keiter, A. Lau, M. Sheffer, B. Toeys, & Reed, B. (2009). The
integrative design guide to green building: Redefining the practice of sustainability.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Adler, P. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the
design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), 147-167.
AIA. (1987). AIA Document A201 - 1987, General Conditions of the contract for construction.
American Institute of Architect (AIA).
AIA, & AIA California Council. (2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide. Retrieved from
The American Institute of Archtects:
http://info.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/IPD_Guide_2007.pdf
AIA, & AIA California Council. (2009). Experiences in Collaboration: on the Path to IPD.
Retrieved from The American Institute of Architects:
http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab079766.pdf
AIA, AIA Minnesota, & School of Architecture University of Minnesota. (2012). IPD Case
Studies. Retrieved from The American Institute of Architects:
http://info.aia.org/aia/ipdcasestudies2011.cfm
AIA (2010). Integrated project delivery: Case study, Report by Cohen J., AIA California
Council.
AIA California Council (2007). Integrated project delivery: A working definition.
<http://www.ipd-ca.net/images/Integrated%20Project%20Delivery%20Definition.pdf.>
Accessed 1/20/12.
Arditi, D., Kale, S., & Tangkar, M. (1997). Innovation in construction equipment and its flow
into the construction industry. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 136(3): 329-340.
Ashcraft, H. (2010, 12 10). Negotiating an Integrated Project Delivery Agreement. Retrieved
from Hanson Bridgett:
http://www.hansonbridgett.com/Publications/pdf/~/media/Files/Publications/NegotiatingI
ntegratedProjectDeliveryAgreement.pdf
Atlas_ti.
(2012,
June).
Features
http://www.atlasti.com/features.html

Overview.

392

Retrieved

from

Altas

ti.:

Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., Mok, J .Y. N., & Leung, B. H. Y. (2008) Building information modeling
(bim): A new paradigm for visual interactive modeling and simulation for construction
projects. In, First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
(ICCIDC-I), August 4-5.
Bossink, B. A. G. (2004) Managing drivers of innovation in construction networks. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 130(3), 337-45.
Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows Software for Social Network
Analysis Uer's Guide.
Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chinowsky, P. and Taylor, J. E. (2007) Project networks; leadership, learning and development,
CIB Working Commission W065 Organisation and Management of Construction.
Chinowsky, P., Diekmann, J. and Gallotti, V. (2008) Social network model for construction.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management(October 2008), 804 -12.
Christensen, C. M. and Overdorf, M. (2000) Meeting the challenge of disruptive change.
Harvard Business Review, 67-75.
Cohen, J. A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Dabbs, J. M. (1982). Making Things Valuable. In J. Van Maanen, Varieties of Qualitative
Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Davis, K. A., & Songer, A. (2009). Resistance to IT change in the AEC Industry: Are the
stereotypes true? Journal of Construction Engineering Management, 135, 1324-1334.
DiMarco, M. K., Taylor, J. E., Alin, P. (2010, July). Emergence and role of cultural boundary
spanners in global engineering project networks. Journal of Management in Engineering,
123-132
Dossick, C.S., & Neff, G. (2011).Messy talk and clean technology: communication, problemsolving and collaboration using Building Information Modeling. Engineering Project
Organization Journal, 1(2), 83-93.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership
of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435-457.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2008). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building
Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

393

Forbes, L., & Ahmed, S. (2011). Modern Construction Lean Project Delivery and Integrated
Practices. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Halgin,

D. (2008). Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved May
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/netgov/files/NIPS/Halgin_NIPS_2008.pdf

2012,

from

Hanneman, R., & Mark, R. (2005). Introduction to Social Network Analysis. Retrieved May
2012,
from
Introduction
to
Social
Network
Analysis:
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/C7_Connection.html#density
Harris, C. (2003). Building innovative teams: Strategies and tools for developing and integrating
high performance innovative groups. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Higgs, M. & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change successfully? A study
of the behavior of successful change leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
47(3), 309-335.
Klein, K. J. and Sorra, J. S. (1996) The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review, 21, 1055–80.
Konchar, M. and Sanvido, V. (1998). Comparison of U.S. project delivery systems.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 124(6): 435-444.
Korkmaz, S., Miller, V., & Sun,W . (2012). Assessing Key Dimension to Effective Innovation
Implementation in Inter-Organizational Teams: An IPD Case. Engineering Project
Organization Journal.
Korkmaz, S., David, R., & Michael, H. (2010). Piloting Evaluation Metrics for Sustainable HighPerformance Building Project Delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management.

Korkmaz, S., Swarup L., & Riley D. (2011). Delivering Sustainable, High Performance
Buildings: Influence of Project Delivery Methods on Team Integration and Project
Outcomes. ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering. Published online ahead of
print.
Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2003). Work groups and ateams in organizations. Handbook of
psychology, 12, 333-375.
LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best: 6000 team members tell leaders what it
takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lewis, L. K. (2007). An organizational stakeholder model of change implementation
communication. Communication Theory, 17(2), 176-204.

394

Lewis, L. K., Isbell, M.G., & Kocshmann, M. (2010). Collaborative tensions: Practitioners’
experiences of interorganizational relationships. Communication Monographs, 77(4),
460-479.
Lewis, L. R., Hamel, S. A., and Richardson, B. R. (2001) Communicating change to nonprofit
stakeholders: Models and predictors of implementers’ approaches. Management
Communication Quarterly, 15(1), 5-41.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Matthews, O., & Howell, G. (2005, April). Integrated Project Delivery an example of relational
contracting. Lean Construction Journal, 2(1), 46-61.
Meiners, E. B., & Miller, V. D. (2004). Communcative and contextual dimensions of
superior/subordinate negotiation episodes. Western Jounral of Communication, 68(3),
302-321.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a
planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication, 22(1), 59-80.
Miller, V., Korkmaz, S., "Structural, Climate and Communication Dynamics of Innovative InterOrganizational Project Teams.", [Grant Proposal to National Science Foundation, Science
of Organizations Program]
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional
approach to understanding structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5-39.
Nofera, W., Korkmaz, S., & Miller, V. D. (2011). Innovative features of integrated project
delivery shaping project team communication. The 2011 Engineering Project
Organizations Conference. August 9-11, 2011, Denver, CO.
Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review
of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108-1136.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (third ed.). Sage
Publications.
Pocock, J., Liu L.Y., & Tang W.H. -I (1997). Prediction of project performance based on degree
of interaction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13, 63.
Pekericli, M., Akinci, B., and Karaesmen, I. (2003) Modeling information dependencies in
construction project network organizations. In, Proceedings, Towards a Vision for
Information Technology in Civil Engineering, Nashville, Tenn. ASCE.

395

Poole, M. S. (2011). Communication. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 249-270). Washington, DC: APA.
Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication with organizations. New York: Industrial
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., and Austin, J. T. (1997) Understanding and managing cynicism
about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48-59.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed., New York: Free Press.
Singh, J., Verbeke, W., & Rhoads, G. K. (1996, July). Do organizational practices matter in role
stress processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for marketing-oriented
boundary spanners. Journal of Marketing, 60, 69-86.
Sive, T. (2009). White Paper, ―Integrated Project Delivery: Reality and Promise, A Strategist’s
Guide to Understanding and Marketing IPD‖, Society for Marketing Professional
Services Foundation, July 2009.
Slaughter, S. (1998). Models of construction innovation. ASCE Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management, 124(3): 226-231.
Suhr, J. (1999). The Choosing By Advanages Decision Making System. Quorom Books.
Swarup, L. (2010). Influence of project delivery methods on achieving sustainable high
performance buildings (Master’s thesis, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY).
Swarup L., Korkmaz, S., & Riley D. (2011). Project delivery metrics for sustainable, high
performance buildings. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Published online ahead of print.
Taylor, J., Dossick, C., & Garvin, S. (2009). Constructing Research with Case Studies.
Construction Research Congress 2009: Building a sustainable future, (pp. 1469-1478).
Taylor, J., & Levitt, R. (2007). Innovation alignment and project network dynamics: An
integrative model for change. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 22-35.
Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W. C., & Field, R. H. G. (1986). Constructive controversy, the VroomYetton model, and managerial decision-making. Journal of Occupational Behaviour,
7(2), 125-138.
Wood, J. (2007). Understanding and Computing Cohen's Kappa: A Tutorial. Web Psych
Empiricist.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods, (third edition) Sage Publications,
CA.

396

Van de Ven, A. L., Delbecq, & Koenig, R., Jr. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes
within organization. American Sociological Review, 41(2), 322-338.
Vakola, M. and Rezgui, Y. (2000) Organizational learning and innovation in the construction
industry. The Learning Organization, 7(4), 174–83.

397