MSc Dissertation: Integrating IPD, BIM and Lean for efficient Project Delivery by Iftikhar ISMAIL BSc MSc MIET

The School of the Built Environment MSc BIM and Integrated Design

Multi-disciplinary design: Integrating IPD, BIM and Lean for efficient Project Delivery Dissertation by Iftikhar Ismail Supervisor: Dr Mark Shelbourn Date: 5th April 2019

Contents

Page Number

ABSTRACT

LIST OF FIGURES

ABBREVIATIONS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CHAPTER 1.0 Introduction to the Research

1.1

Introduction

1.2

Research Objectives

1.3

Research Aim

1.4

Observations

1.5

Justification and Research Rationale

1.6

Research Challenge

1.7

Structure of Dissertation

CHAPTER 2.0 Literature Review

2.1

Introduction

2.2

Trust and Collaboration within Construction

2.3

IPD vs Traditional Project Delivery Methods

2.3.1

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)

2.3.2

Traditional Contracts vs IPD Contracts

2.3.3

IPD Drivers

2.3.4

IPD Enablers

2.3.5

IPD Barriers and Challenges

CHAPTER 3.0 Research Methodology

3.1

Introduction

3.2

Research Philosophy

3.3

Research Approach and Strategy

3.4

Qualitative Semi-structured Interviews

3.5

Thematic analysis

3.6

Ethical Considerations and Research Conduct

3.7

Summary

Page 1 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

CHAPTER 4.0 Data Collection and Analysis

4.1

Introduction

4.2

Industry Perception of IPD

4.3

Sampling – Interviews

4.4

Findings from Interview Responses

4.5

Comparisons between Interview Responses, Case Studies & Literature Review

4.6

Summary of Key Findings

4.7

Summary of Chapter

4.8

Recommendations for Practical Implementation

CHAPTER 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1

Conclusions - Discussion of Research findings

5.2

Achievement of the Research Aim and Objectives

5.3

Limitations of the Research

5.4

Areas for Further Research

References, Bibliography & Appendice

Appendix A – Confirmation/Copy of Ethical Approval

Appendix B – Example Interview Transcript

Appendix C – Tabulated Interview Questions and Responses

Appendix D – Organisational Agreement Form

Appendix E – Participant Consent Form

Appendix F – Participant Information Sheet

Page 2 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Fig. 1: Quote from the NBS Guide to Collaborative Construction (2017)

Page 3 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Abstract

A continued problem within the UK construction industry is the use of traditional building methods used for project delivery. Whilst many, developed countries such as Japan and the US have adopted lean and digital technologies within construction (for purposes of efficiency and to minimise waste) - the UK has retained a slow and wasteful approach to construction procurement across all sectors. Even though the UK government set out within the Construction Strategy 2025 Report - the aim of using collaborative BIM for lowering costs, faster project delivery and lowered emissions, these targets have yet to be realised across both the public and private sectors, and have been difficult to achieve with traditional delivery systems that are currently in place.

The purpose of this research is to understand the underlying philosophy with regards to an Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) approach to construction, along with IPD collaborative project strategies and their importance in achieving successful project outcomes. The research focuses on multi-disciplinary design and construction practices within the US and UK and to evaluate IPD as an opportunity within the UK to facilitate the increase of team integration, collaboration and information flow between RIBA Stages 4 to 5.

An in-depth study of IPD is informed with a key focus on concepts, principles and potential ‘way-forward’ for an IPD approach within the current digital transformation of the UK construction industry. The research adopts a semi-structured, qualitative, interview approach to ascertain the viability of IPD within the UK construction market. Additionally, a detailed literature review is undertaken of three case studies utilising an IPD approach with Building Information Modelling (BIM) and lean concepts, together under the scope of ‘collaborative project strategies’. The case studies focus on BIM ‘enabled’ projects within the construction sector showcasing the possibility (and potential) of an IPD approach for driving efficiencies and cost certainty to the client/owner.

KEY WORDS: Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Building Information Modelling (BIM), Collaboration, Lean.

Page 4 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

List of Figures Fig. 1: Quote from the NBS Guide to Collaborative Construction (2017)

Fig. 2: History of Collaborative Working, by Constructing Excellence

Fig. 3: Structure of Dissertation Research (starting from Literature Review & Case Studies)

Fig. 4: US based IPD Case Studies (AIA Minnesota, March 2012)

Fig. 5: Difference between Traditional Project Delivery and IPD, by Patrick Luu (2017)

Fig. 6: The MacLeamy Curve - Collaborating to Increase Value and Efficiency

Fig. 7: Collaborating to Increase Value and Efficiency

Fig. 8: Factors driving increased adoption of IPD (Hays, 2009)

Fig. 9: The Research ‘Onion’, Saunders et al. (2015)

Fig. 10: Adapted Thematic Analysis Chart, The University of Salford (2019)

Fig. 11: Adapted Thematic Analysis Chart highlighting key issues raised during interviews

Fig. 12: Key Challenges in Implementing a IPD/BIM Strategy, by B. Kumar (2015)

Fig. 13: The rise of BIM adoption since 2010 within the UK (RIBA, 2018)

Fig. 14: An example of the “BIG Room” fosters Collaboration

Fig. 15: Image from BIM Presentation. Ben Wallbank (2015), The University of Salford

Page 5 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Abbreviations

AEC

Architecture, Engineering and Construction

AIA

American Institute of Architects

AGC

General Contractors of America

BEP

BIM Execution Plan

BIM

Building Information Modelling

BMS

Building Management System

CAD

Computer Aided Design

CAFM

Computer Aided Facilities Management

CDE

Common Data Environment

CIC

CIC BIM Protocol

CURT

Construction User’s Round Table

EIR

Employers Information Requirements

GSL

Government Soft Landings

IFC

Industry Foundation Classes

IPD

Integrated Project Delivery

KPI

Key Performance Indicators

LOD

Level of Detail

LOI

Level of Information

OIR

Organisational Information Requirements

O&M

Operations and Maintenance

PAS1192

Publicly Available Specification 1192 series

PIM

Project Information Model

PIP

Project Implementation Plan

Project Manager

RIBA

The Royal Institute of British Architects

RFI

Request For Information

ROI

Return on Investment

WEF

World Economic Forum

Page 6 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Acknowledgments Firstly, I would like to thank and acknowledge the support given throughout the research process by my dissertation supervisor, Dr Mark Shelbourn from The School of the Built Environment at the University of Salford. The door to Dr Shelbournâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office was always open to discuss my research. Your support is greatly appreciated and has been invaluable throughout.

A great debt of gratitude goes to my parents who have continuously supported me throughout my years of education and through this dissertation. This achievement would not have been possible without them. And finally, a mention must be made to my patient wife, Humera, who has always been there for me. She saw the passion I had in my work and I thank her for her love and support.

Iftikhar Ismail

Page 7 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

CHAPTER 1.0 Introduction to the Research 1.1 Introduction

Until now, much effort has concentrated on the benefits derived from BIM - with little interest placed on ‘collaborative project strategies’ such as IPD and lean (Fischer et al. 2017). The research aims to fill this gap by managing existing BIM adoption and promote effective project outcomes through the development of IPD/BIM/lean strategies. For example, firms could manage this change by consequential steps according to the company’s specificity. For doing so, re-assessment of organisational structures and change to collaborative relationships between design disciplines are some of the key areas to be considered in developing strategies for change management in projects.

1.2 Research Objectives

This research examines a variety of approaches and examines an IPD approach by acknowledging its positive and negative impact in the construction industry alongside BIM, whilst allowing for the following objectives to be met:

1. To explore the extent and usage of collaborative project strategies (IPD) within industry. 2. To examine the barriers to collaborative project strategies (IPD) within industry. 3. To develop an appropriate research strategy to identify key enablers for the implementation of collaborative project strategies (IPD). 4. To explore the evolving role of the BIM Manager as the ‘catalyst’ to drive IPD within design and construction organisations. 5. To suggest key benefits (including time, cost and quality) from using IPD methodologies within the UK Architecture/Engineering/Construction (AEC) industry. 6. To make recommendations of key enablers that can offer ‘quick wins’ within multidisciplinary design organisations in the UK.

1.3 Research Aim

The aim of this research is to investigate IPD methodologies as key project enablers within UK construction based multi-disciplinary design and engineering organisations.

Page 8 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

The above aim and objectives are analysed and answered by examining and explaining the relationship between IPD and BIM within the construction industry through a variety of sources. This is achieved by undertaking a literature review using case studies from the US along with interviews with key industry professionals utilising collaborative project strategies within their current projects.

The research also looks at the problems with using an IPD and BIM approach to construction with regards to the significant resistance in adoption mainly to the cultural change involved in its adoption. If we (the construction industry) can overcome these hurdles, then significant benefits can be realised by all stakeholders concerned. We must also keep in mind that an IPD approach to construction can be procured without the use of BIM, however BIM is viewed as the ‘catalyst’ in supporting an IPD approach. Although BIM is not IPD, it is the ‘collaborative’ approach which facilitates it.

The main findings within this research includes a brief look at the rapid development and rise of BIM for achieving efficient project delivery through team integration and collaboration, and how additional enablers such as IPD and lean can further increase project efficiencies if implemented early on in the construction timeline. Hence, IPD for project delivery along with its associated challenges and risks are investigated followed by best practices aligned to BIM and lean principles.

1.4 Observations

The research aims to fill a critical gap within the construction industry by reviewing existing collaborative project strategies such as IPD, including current BIM processes along with lean principles. BIM collaboration and efficient construction procurement both contribute to successful IPD projects. Without an understanding of BIM processes and lean concepts (or the systematic elimination of waste in both design and construction), an IPD project will falter at best and fail at worst (Fischer et al. 2017). In the US, IPD has recently become the preferred project delivery system on all projects involving BIM (McGraw Hill, 2009). Although it is noted that it is possible to achieve an IPD approach without BIM, BIM is still an essential component to achieving the collaboration required for IPD (Sacks et al. 2009). BIM in the US is a useful ‘digital’ tool in terms of 3d modelling output, but not in itself sufficient for implementing an IPD approach.

Page 9 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

1.5 Justification and Research Rationale The Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) sectors within UK construction are currently undergoing a radical paradigm shift by the implementation of new technologies and ways of working such as BIM. Due to a lack of collaboration, team integration and trust, the combination of both IPD with BIM as a construction ‘enabler’ is being considered as a possible solution to delivering projects with greater efficiencies, collaboration and certainty in terms of time, cost, speed, flexibility and sustainability (Fischer et al. 2017).

Construction is facing a revolution around knowledge and change management and BIM is both the technology and methodology enabling this change (Eastman et al. 2011). Benefits derived from an efficient knowledge and process management using BIM are increasingly recognised along with the growth in technology, and although the pace of BIM has increased in recent years, the awareness of IPD and lean has been slow.

IPD is currently being implemented in increasingly diverse settings, from the US to Europe, and to the Middle East. By studying a range of case studies, we can better understand how IPD compares with Traditional Project Delivery methods for different projects and teams. An analysis of how IPD has been adapted and applied to each of the case studies demonstrates that IPD is a method that employs multiple strategies to achieve high performing, collaborative teams (AIA, 2012). By comparing the case studies on how they followed or adopted IPD and BIM, we begin to see how some aspects of IPD have greater impact than others.

Hence there is a need to provide a practical transition strategy for IPD, taking into account business priorities and risks in change management, as lagging productivity is still an ongoing challenge that could be overcome just by developing existing BIM enabled projects by harnessing both IPD and lean workflows. Professional organisations such as The American Institute of Architects (AIA) and The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) are currently supporting IPD advancement within construction by establishing national standards, guidelines and facilitating discussions that highlight successful IPD projects and also considers the obsticles to IPD adoption. There is a high degree of concern regarding risk in relation to IPD and the close partnership it neccessitates (AIA 2012), and the need for new legal frameworks to procure IPD within construction procurement. Many industry stakeholders feel that there is a real need in construction to improve better collaboration and information exchange to support IPD (AIA, 2012).

Page 10 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Since IPD is a relatively new delivery model for construction procurment, it is not surprising that IPD participants have had less project experience using IPD than with traditional or design-build delivery procurement methods. According to AIA (2012), project participants with even one or two IPD completed projects behind them can greatly influence the project team. For experienced teams, IPD continues to be fine tuned and adjusted to meet specific project and team needs.

By comparing case studies from AIA with projects documented in 2011-2017, we can see the rapid pace of change from using IPD. Sutter’s Fairfield Medical Office Building began in 2005 is considered one of the first ‘true’ IPD projects in the US meeting challenges of creating new strategies for what was then a very new project delivery method (AIA, 2012). And in spite of many years of experience with collaborative or even integrated team delivery (usually in the form of traditional or designbuild), IPD in it’s purest form required significant re-thinking of many core processes, such as sharing information and sharing risk/profits etc.

The IPD concept has emerged as a natural companion to BIM. IPD brings key construction management, trades, fabrication, supply-chain expertise together with design professionals and the client earlier in the process to produce a design that is optimised for maximum quality, aesthetics, constructability, price certainty and lifecycle management (AIA, 2012).

The aim of this study is to investigate and ascertain IPD methodologies as key project ‘enablers’ within UK construction based multi-disciplinary design and engineering organisations. This research examines a variety of collaborative project strategies such IPD, along with BIM, and acknowledges its positive and/or negative impact within the construction industry, this in turn allows for the research aim and objectives to be met which are listed in Chapter 5.2.

1.6 Research Challenge IPD is a relatively new procurement process, and trying to ‘synergise’ IPD, BIM and lean together will not be an easy task (Eastman et al. 2011). Even decades after the publication of the Latham (1994) and Egan (1998) reports, construction still has a tendency to operate within a ‘silo’ mentality, and overcoming this attitude is still a major challenge within the construction industry today.

Page 11 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Fig. 2: History of Collaborative Working, by Constructing Excellence

BIM has become both a new technology and a new way of working, and it has now started to make an impact within the construction sector (Cartlidge, 2015). At strategic level, BIM offers the capacity to address many of the industry’s failings, including promoting collaboration, waste reduction, value creation and improved productivity.

The Construction User’s Roundtable (CURT) galvanised the construction industry by declaring that integrated project structure, open information sharing, and BIM were the key components for a radically revised way of delivering projects that performed. These demands for radical change emerged as the industry was becoming aware of other processes about which there was interest but little certainty. Concepts such as lean (a Japanese manufacturing strategy) and IPD (from the US construction industry) promised new methods of optimisation and decision making from projects (Fischer et al. 2017). Hence, ‘synergising’ IPD, BIM and Iean together supports and reinforces each other to mutually agreed results, and this view is supported by Deutsch (2011), who states:

“I see IPD as the process for good collaboration, BIM as the catalyst and Lean as the

]

‘waste minimiser.’ All three ingredients are key for a project to be executed successfully.”

The real challenge is detailing the ‘why and ‘how,’ IPD can help industry professionals develop an understanding of the real value of an IPD system to bring stakeholders together early in the planning process to maximise talents and improve project clarity, execution, and ultimately success.

Page 12 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

1.7 Structure of Dissertation The structure of the research is based on empirical evidence. This is primary research from ‘realtime’ data gathered from interviews, and secondary research from case studies and journals.

Literature Review

Key Interviews

Case Studies

Data Collection

Research Methodology

Analysis

Research Outcomes

Fig. 3: Structure of Dissertation Research (starting from Literature Review & Case Studies)

The following presents a synopsis of the main chapters (1 to 5).

Chapter 1: Introduction The research topic of collaborative project strategies (IPD) and broader areas are introduced which identify challenges such as the lack of collaboration and trust within the UK construction industry, and it’s comparison with the US. The growing interest in IPD (from the US) is touched upon and the research aim and objectives are set out.

Chapter 2: Literature Review This chapter provides a review of existing literature surrounding the research topic. The literature review is used to obtain a comprehensive amount of data on IPD and its wider significance to the construction industry. The data obtained is funnelled down into more specific and focused research areas such as IPD drivers, enablers and challenges with a brief summary at the end. All areas are critically analysed and the data carefully extrapolated based upon the research aim and objectives. Page 13 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Chapter 3: Research Methodology This chapter investigates the various research methods and approaches that are analysed and adopted to achieve the aim and objectives set out in chapter one. To do this, a brief overview of the research approach using the ‘Research Onion’ is given. The research approach looks at both qualitative and quantitative methods for obtaining data such as interviews and their benefits and disadvantages, and the reasons behind the final choices made. A justification for the selected research method is presented alongside the processes used for analysing the collected data (eg. thematic analysis). The importance of ethical research conduct is discussed before outlining how this research study will be aligned with any necessary ethical considerations such as participant details.

Chapter 4: Data Collection and Analysis With the completion of four semi-structured interviews, the findings and data analysis are set out. Initially, the background details for the individual participants are outlined before key topics and themes are systematically ordered. The interview data is then analysed based on the criteria set out within the Research Methods chapter. The interview findings and data analysis, along with the themes drawn from the literature reviews are discussed.

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions are outlined with reference to how the research aim and objectives were achieved. Next, the recommendations are set out highlighting the benefits of key actions based on the overall research undertaken. Next, the limitations to the study are highlighted, with reference to the level of data and case studies available, and high level of IPD ‘maturity’ in the US. Finally, areas for further study are discussed, this highlights the need for ‘high-level’ industry involvement to promote the benefits of IPD and possible areas for future research.

References, Bibliography and Appendices At the end of the study, a comprehensive list of references and bibliography is included of primary and secondary research material, along with an appendice that supports the research undertaken; a tabulated transcript of interviews is given along with participant agreement forms outlining the details of the proposed study.

Page 14 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

CHAPTER 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction

“Looking at construction projects today, I do not see much difference in the execution of work in comparison to 50 years ago”. (Beck, J. Chairman AECOM, Shaping the Future of Construction, 2016).

The purpose of this chapter of the dissertation is to understand the multi-disciplinary design approach to integrating IPD, BIM and lean for efficient project delivery particular during RIBA Stages 4 to 5. This research is undertaken from an IPD vantage point - to understand the underlying philosophy with regards to an integrated approach to construction, through focusing on key IPD ‘ingredients’ such as the concepts, principles, and the potential for IPD ‘acceptance’ within the UK.

A variety of literature is examined with regards IPD and collaboration and acknowledging IPD’s impact (or lack thereof) within the construction industry. This, along with the advancements in BIM and allied technologies will be examined through case studies along with interviews with key industry professionals who are using collaborative project strategies within their current projects.

This chapter will focus on the problems associated with using an IPD approach to construction and its resistance to change and adoption – this we will see is usually due to the cultural change involved, by moving from a traditional ‘siloed’ approach to a more collaborative/shared approach to construction procurement.

If the construction industry can overcome these obstacles, then significant benefits can be realised by all project stakeholders concerned, whilst keeping in mind that an IPD approach to construction can be procured without the use of BIM, however BIM is viewed as the ‘catalyst’ which supports IPD. Although BIM is not IPD, it is the collaborative approach which facilitates it. With regards to the importance of collaboration with BIM, the World Economic Forum (2018) have stated:

“BIM facilitates integration and collaboration among all project stakeholders – from early design through to operations and maintenance”.

Page 15 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

2.2 Trust and Collaboration within Construction The global construction industry is currently facing a revolution around knowledge and change management, and BIM is both the technology and methodology enabling this change (Eastman et al. 2011). Benefits derived from efficient knowledge and process management using BIM are increasingly recognised along with the wide-spread growth in technology, and although the pace of BIM, digital technologies, prefabrication etc. has increased in recent years, the awareness of IPD and lean has been slow due to a lack of knowledge and awareness.

This view is shared with Fischer et al. (2017) who suggests the change process for IPD adoption will require numerous challenges, barriers and risks, including: 

Lack of management ‘top-down’ support and buy-in



Inefficient procedures, processes and fragmented supply-chains



People’s resistance to change and new ways of working



High resistance (and cost) of implementation, training and support

Until now, much effort has concentrated on the benefits derived from BIM, with little emphasis placed on IPD, lean or any form of innovate collaboration between project teams. Decades after the publication of the Latham (1994) and Egan (1998) reports, construction still has a tendency to operate within a ‘silo’ mentality, and overcoming this attitude is still an ongoing challenge within the construction industry. The Latham and Egan reports, and the introduction of Partnering, Alliancing and more collaborative working, the construction team has been encouraged to move away from the traditional fragmented approach to delivering construction projects (Cartlidge, 2015). With the introduction of BIM, better collaboration has come about due to the use of digital technologies. The RIBA have described BIM as ‘collaborative’ and a ‘game-changer’ for industry. It provides a digital data environment where all stakeholders share and agree project information (RIBA, 2018).

BIM has become both a new technology and a new way of working, and it has only now started to make its impact within the construction sector. This is supported by Cartlidge (2015) who states:

“At strategic level, BIM offers the capacity to address many of the industry’s failings, including promoting collaboration, waste reduction, value creation and improved productivity”.

Page 16 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

The Construction User’s Roundtable (CURT) galvanised the construction industry by declaring that integrated project structure, open information sharing, and BIM were the key components for a radically revised way of delivering projects that performed. These demands for radical change emerged as the industry was becoming aware of other processes about which there was interest but little certainty. Concepts such as lean (a Japanese manufacturing strategy) and IPD (from the US construction industry) promised new methods of optimisation and decision making from projects (Fischer et al. 2017). Hence, the synergy of IPD, BIM and Iean all support and reinforce one another to mutually agreed results. This view is also shared with Deutsch (2011), who states:

“I see IPD as the process for good collaboration, BIM as the catalyst and lean concepts as the waste minimiser – all three ingredients are key for a project to be executed successfully”.

As IPD is a relatively new procurement process that is gaining popularity, trying to ‘synergise’ IPD, BIM and lean together will not be an easy task (Eastman et al. 2011). When using IPD within construction, value to the client is maximised through continuous process improvements that optimise flow and reduce waste. Hence, IPD supports the synergies of both BIM and Iean to take place. According to Eastman et al. (2011), IPD and BIM already go together and represents a clear break with current ‘linear’ processes as IPD allows collaboration to take place and BIM has proved to be the key enabling process behind IPD. AIA Construction contracts such as the ‘Integrated Agreement for Lean Contracts’ allows teams to pull in all three areas of IPD, BIM and lean. On a US healthcare project, Eastman et al. (2011) states:

“Sutter Health has been experimenting with IPD and lean construction practices over the past five years. They have had considerable success in using these techniques”.

Hence, the use of IPD, BIM and lean, along with a keen desire to utilise collaborative delivery methods, such as shared risk and reward on project delivery, may eventually change the style of project delivery in the future. It is also important not to underestimate the advancement of digital design tools that support IPD, BIM and lean philosophies, as Fischer et al. (2017) states:

“The goal of everyone in the industry should be better, faster, more capable project delivery created by fully integrated, collaborative teams. Owners must be the ones to drive this change by leading the creation of collaborative, cross-functional teams”.

Page 17 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

The project team must, in its entirety, focus on delivering a valuable ‘product’ to the client/owner, and not simply fulfil the minimum requirements so often seen on projects. Delivering a valuable building means establishing clear goals and processes for achieving the desired outcome, aligning the interests of the project team with that of the building itself. But how is this done? Like BIM, the industry has latched upon buzzwords such as ‘digitisation’ and ‘collaboration’ as potential strategies. It is clear that fundamental innovations in our industry need exemplars such as Sutter Health’s Medical office building.

According to Fischer et al. (2017), today IPD and BIM are seen as viable options for many projects where traditional delivery methods would yield suboptimal results, and where project teams are properly prepared for challenges, demands and benefits. This research is designed to accomplish both through detailed procedural explanation and case studies demonstrating the implementation of IPD and BIM ‘enabled’ projects, whereby creating buildings as deserving of modern, highperformance methodologies that best realise the tremendous value they create for society.

Page 18 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

2.3 IPD vs Traditional Project Delivery Methods

IPD is being implemented in increasingly diverse settings, from the US through to Europe and the Middle East (AIA, 2012). By studying a range of case studies, we can better understand how IPD compares with traditional project delivery methods for different types of projects and teams. An analysis of how IPD has been adapted and applied to each of the case studies demonstrates that IPD is a method that employs multiple strategies to achieving high performing, collaborative teams.

The AIA (2012) have produced a table of results comparing various elements associated with IPD showing how organisations followed or adopted BIM and IPD, here we can see how some aspects of IPD have had a greater impact than others. The degree to which projects implemented IPD strategies from contractual teams to management, social, environmental and technological strategies is documented in the chart below titled: ‘Degree of IPD’ (AIA, 2012).

Fig. 4: US based IPD Case Studies (AIA Minnesota, March 2012)

Page 19 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

The difference between IPD and traditional forms of project delivery is that traditionally, the AEC industries employ a standard project delivery method like design & build, design-bid-build and construction management. And due to the lack of positive results, many industry professionals are against these traditional forms of project delivery â&#x20AC;&#x201C; mainly due to cost overruns and low quality output. The AEC industry is also fragmented, inefficient and adversarial because in the standard methods of procurement, each project team is responsible for its own work package and the attempts to maximise their individual profits is the ultimate goal. The AIA (2012) have shown through case studies that IPD is a new and innovative project delivery method that addresses the problems of inefficiency, and adversarial relations within industry (Ilozor and Kelly, 2012).

The differences between the fragmented nature of traditional project delivery and IPD are compared below. This table highlights the collaborative nature of IPD through facilitating and encouraging multi-stakeholder risk/reward sharing and multi-lateral open sharing of project information.

Fig. 5: Difference between Traditional Project Delivery and IPD, by Patrick Luu (2017) (https://uscad.com/blog/integrated-project-delivery)

Page 20 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

The MacLeamy Curve (below) was introduced during the Construction User’s Roundtable meeting titled: “Collaboration, Integrated information and the Project Lifecycle in building design”.

The MacLeamy Curve illustrates the concept of making design decisions earlier in the project when the opportunity to influence positive outcomes is maximised and the cost of changes minimised.

Fig. 6: The MacLeamy Curve - Collaborating to Increase Value and Efficiency (vjscozzariandsons.com)

This table shows how in the traditional procurement process, contractors do not come aboard a project until the design is substantially complete (construction document phase), which is towards the end of RIBA Stage 3 and/or start of Stage 4 (Technical Design). However, at this late stage in the project programme sub-contractors struggle to make sense of the design with regards buildability and in turn compensate for the design’s imitations. In contrast, integrated design and delivery processes allows contractors to join the construction teams at an early stage of the project, allowing them to develop their understanding of the client’s needs in conjunction with the designers are in turn able to develop a cost-effective production process alongside the design (Mossman et al. 2010). Commenting on the low performance of traditional contracting, Fischer et al. (2017) states:

Page 21 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

“If traditional project delivery approaches and contracts are supposed to provide cost and schedule certainty, quality, all without waste, then how do we explain the cost and schedule overruns, litigation and claims, and the waste in traditional contracts?”

Hence, the benefits of changing to a more collaborate approach to construction procurement (as opposed to traditional methods) can be summarised for the following reasons: 

Traditional contracts create an environment of opposition



Traditional contracts are historically based on ‘piece-work’ output



Traditional contracts rigidly divide project output based on traditional roles



Traditional contracts limit communication to specific or inefficient paths



Project collaboration without an ‘enforced’ IPD agreement will increase risk



Traditional contracts are based on rewarding individuals, and not on the collective group.

IPD, on the other hand, lends itself to the shared risk and reward philosophies as it creates a ‘value based’ system rather than a ‘cost based’ one. This means that trust is encouraged, as opposed to a ‘win at all costs’ mentality often seen on the majority of traditionally procured construction projects.

2.3.1 Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Deutsch (2011), an early advocate of IPD and collaboration describes IPD as:

“a collaborative approach, inclusive of delivery methods such as integrated project delivery (IPD), marked by the qualities of early participation by all team members, sharing risk and reward, among other benefits that attempt to resolve efficiency and waste concerns and overcome historically adverse relations while creating the most value to the client in the project”.

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) describes IPD within their 2007 guide as:

“IPD is built on collaboration, which in turn is built on trust. Trust based collaboration encourages parties to focus on project outcomes rather than their individual goals. Without trust based collaboration, IPD will falter and participants will remain in the adverse and antagonistic relationships that plague the construction industry today”.

Page 22 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Fig. 7: Collaborating to Increase Value and Efficiency (vjscozzariandsons.com)

IPD was first delivered in the US, in 2007 with initial case studies collected and disseminated in 2010. Deutsch (2011) describe IPD team relationship as:

“Having everyone ‘at the table’ from day one means incompatible design components and systems, including clashes are discovered earlier, where it is easier to respond, and changes have less impact on schedule and cost”.

This collaborative approach has led to the growing movement by clients, Architects and contractors away from the traditional approach to construction to the IPD approach. And in turn leading to the planning of projects more effectively through the use of BIM, helping to mitigate the risks associated with construction projects. The reason why BIM is an important factor on projects is highlighted by Deutsch (2011) where he says:

“A US study calculated a yearly loss of $15.8 Billion dollars in the construction industry due to a lack of information sharing and process continuity”. Page 23 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Deutsch (2011) goes on to explain that for a ‘true’ IPD project to be successful, the Architect, client and contractor have to ‘work in concert’. Each maintaining their base responsibilities, but working together to make sure all aspects of the project are a success.

The AIA (2007) defines the following nine IPD principles as delivering projects with enhanced collaboration and ‘inter-party’ trust. These include:

1. Mutual Trust and Respect: the values of collaboration and commitment to working as an integrated team are understood by the client, designer, consultants and contractor.

2. Mutual Benefit and Reward: Everyone benefits as the IPD compensation structure recognises and rewards early involvement. Compensation is based on the value added by each party and rewards ‘what’s best for project’, eg. incentives tied to project outcomes.

3. Collaborative Innovation and Decision Making: In IPD projects innovation is stimulated when ideas are freely exchanged amongst all parties. These ideas are judged on their merits. Key ideas and decisions are evaluated within the project team and agreed upon collectively.

4. Early involvement of Key Participants: Key ‘players’ are involved from the earliest possible moment; hence decision-making is vastly improved by the collective knowledge and expertise of the group. This is most powerful at the early stages of the project where informed decisions have the greatest impact and the lowest risk.

5. Early Goal Definition: Project goals and objectives are developed early and agreed by all participants. All input is valued and this is the greatest driver of the IPD approach, where key decisions made during early stages have the greatest impact on the success of the project. 6. Intensified Planning: The IPD approach recognises that increased effort in Planning at the start of the project will result in increased efficiency and savings. This greatly improves the design, streamlining and shortening the expensive construction elements. 7. Open Communication: IPD’s focus on team performance is based on open, direct and honest communication amongst all stakeholders on the project. Disputes are recognised as and when they occur and clear responsibilities are defined from the beginning in a ‘noblame’ culture allowing for a quick resolution to problems identified. Page 24 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

8. Appropriate Technology: The right technologies are agreed from the beginning by all project stakeholders to allow maximum functionality in terms of interoperability and open standards, as transparent data exchanges are essential in supporting IPD. Any technology which is compliant with Open Standards best enables communications among participants. 9. Organisation and Leadership: The project team using IPD are seen as an organisation in its own right, where participants are committed to the same goals and values. All roles are clearly defined, where team leadership is undertaken by the most capable with regards to specific work, competence and services. Usually design professionals and contractors will lead within their own area of expertise with support from the entire team, however specific roles are determined on a project-by-project basis (AIA, 2007).

Hence, to enable the implementation of the above principles, not only does the concept of differing organisational goals need to be broken down, but a system needs to be created where all parties interests and risks are shared and associated with the outcome of the project.

2.3.2 Traditional Contracts vs IPD Contracts According to the AIA (2007), traditional contracts cannot be used on an IPD project due to the following reasons: 

You cannot align risk and reward to optimise project success over the individual entity success if the designers and builders are not a ‘team’.



Cultural change is hard enough with a new contract, without it people revert to thinking about their own interests and on controlling information.



And, it is nearly impossible to integrate operating, design and construction knowledge without high risk to the designers.

Alternatively, IPD contracts are fundamentally different from traditional design and construction contracts, Many organisations struggle with changing their procurement systems as adopting IPD requires rethinking their business and contract models (Fischer et al. 2017). Some of these include: 

Traditional contracts such as lump-sum and Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contracts create conflicting interest between owner, designer and builder.

Page 25 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail



Traditional contracts are based on a ’piece-work’ business model as profits are based on number of units sold.



Traditional contracts constrain communication to specific paths. For example, the client and contractor can only communicate with each other through the Architect and communication by sub-contractors and suppliers is only through the contractor.



Traditional contracts reward individuals, not group performance, hence, collaboration without an IPD agreement can increase risk.

The reality is that traditional contracts are designed to maintain a distance between all project stakeholders and profitability is determined individually, and is unrelated to project outcomes. Whereas, IPD contracts define relationships amongst projects participants and the process that guides their actions such as collaborative work-plans and co-location.

Fischer et al. (2017) states that IPD contracts lead to exceptional project performance and value by: 

Removing impediment to and stimulate communication, collaboration and creativity.



Re-aligning participants to well understood and agreed objectives encourages and rewards behaviour that increases project value.

The IPD agreement is designed to remove impediments to collaboration, align the interests of the parties, and encourage behaviours that add value to the project. Rather than prescribe specific actions, a well set out IPD agreement uses a relational structure with jointly shared risk and reward to create a system that inherently enables and reinforces collaboration. This view is reinforced by Fischer et al. (2017) who states:

“The key parties within this risk/reward structure are bound together through a ‘multi-party’ agreement that must at least include the owner/client, designer and contractor. The agreement should also include consultants and other trades”.

2.3.3 IPD ‘Drivers’ There are a number of IPD enablers currently in use within the UK construction industry, and that clients are becoming more ‘intelligent’ and wanting more input into their projects; this is pushing the design team to provide clients with clear, accessible information. Morton and Thompson (2011) reinfirm this view by stating:

Page 26 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

“BIM and collaborative processes is enabling this process to improve. BIM is being used increasingly as a ‘tool’ to not only design, simulate and maintain buildings, but also as a way to communicate design intent. Clients, designers and contractors are increasingly seeking to integrate at an earlier stage in the project to identify key project and client objectives, strategies and information release”.

The Autodesk White Paper (2008) states key drivers which are ‘fuelling’ the need towards an IPD approach to construction procurement - leading to better collaboration and more efficiency within projects. Some of these drivers include: 

A shift towards globalized work processes: The construction supply-chain is becoming increasingly globalised, making cost predictions more complex and demand for building components more unpredictable. In addition, shifting demographics are fuelling the need for new competencies relating to collaborative processes.



The demand for sustainability: Optimising building design to reduce environmental impact through reduced energy consumption resulting in the expansion of sustainable building standards and materials to address performance over a building’s entire lifecycle.



Need for increased productivity: The decline in productivity within construction is primarily due to the increase in cost of poor execution, lack of reliability, poor project management and imperfect design outcomes.



Improving buildability – The increase complexity of Buildings: Nichani (2016) states that building projects themselves are increasingly complex endeavours; driven by ever more dramatic building forms, complicated supply chains, new standards for project delivery, regulatory restrictions and the numerous interactions between a large team of members on a project and ever increasing client demands.



Target Value Design (TVD): TVD is the design strategy that offers designers an opportunity to engage in the design conversation with those people who will procure services and execute the design. Develop a project business plan and validate the plan. Set the targets for value and condition for satisfaction, and the design and construction targets (Ballard and Pasquire, 2012).

Page 27 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Fig. 8: Factors driving increased adoption of IPD (Hays, 2009)

A basic premise of IPD is the reliance on knowledge integration. IPD encompasses highly collaborative processes that rely on the collective expertise of all project stakeholders from the early stages of design. The early ramifications of design decisions can be understood and thereby increase the likelihood of project success.

2.3.4 IPD ‘Enablers’

Reaping the benefits of IPD is only possible when all project team members are brought together in the design and construction process as early as possible. Formal IPD training may provide an element in overcoming these cultural barriers. Regarding change, Fischer et al. (2017) states:

“Change is difficult; everyone can cite instances when team members fell back on old behaviours”.

Developing trust is a real and continuous challenge. It is easy to become protective of your personal interest and forget that in IPD the team wins or loses together. Enablers, such as IPD training may be achieved at two levels; organisational and at project level. Using trust-based activities and tools can help achieve IPD adoption through the use of BIM, collaboration and lean concepts such as Target Value Design and Last Planner System. A summary of key IPD enablers are listed below:

Page 28 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

1. BIM According to the latest NBS National BIM Report (2018), BIM helps foster better working relationships on collaborative projects, and IPD is a major cultural shift for organisations not only in the UK, but globally, and its transition is not possible without the use of digital technologies (Nichani, 2016).

The use of BIM has proved to be a key ‘enabling’ technology for teams wanting to undertake an IPD contract. As shown earlier, an IPD approach to projects centers around bringing together all project stakeholders together at the early stages. Ie. cross-functional project teams collaborating on a building’s design, construction, and lifecycle management for optimised project delivery, by using collaborative, digital model-based technology as the ‘enabler’.

Currently, the high adoption rates of BIM in the UK is a core enabler for enhancing collaboration that IPD demands. This view is reaffirmed by Autodesk (2008) who state:

“IPD, like BIM and digital fabrication, is the result of a convergence of opportunities brought about by technology and business processes and innovation, and is inspired by the strong desire of the construction industry for more predictable, accurate and responsible results”.

2. Collaboration According to Fischer et al. (2017), ‘collaboration is the heart and soul of IPD’. When teams are collaborating, every step in the IPD process works better. And when teams are collaborating, many achievements become possible due to the team ‘spirit’ enabled by an IPD approach. For example, sharing information is a key component on any project, and even more so in an IPD contract. Fischer et al. (2017) goes on to state the benefits of collaboration and BIM by stating:

“Collaborative working practices where all design team members are engaged at an early stage in the design process, aided by BIM tools, are estimated to save at least 10% over the cost of traditional design and construction projects”.

IPD’s risk/reward system can be used to increase collaboration as well as increased frequency of interactions between project stakeholders, hence overall project value is maximised when IPD project teams choose a collaborative strategy.

Page 29 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

3. Trust and Transparency Trust is the fundamental element in collaboration. Trust facilitates information sharing and enhances productivity (Fischer et al. 2017). Mutual respect and trust are the single most important principles of IPD (AIA, 2007). IPD works on the concept that every team member trusts one another in their respective expertise and services. In an IPD approach, the overall benefit and target is in the interest of the project outcomes and achieving the requirements of the client, which in turn distributes any rewards amongst project team members. This is only possible where the value of trust is developed among all participants in the project.

4. Motivation and Incentives Fischer et al. (2017) reaffirms that working towards the interest of the project and achieving targets and goals collectively requires a high degree of motivation amongst all project participants. Hence, IPD’s compensation structure follows the Project Alliancing Model with the goal of stimulating efficiency and the alignment of interests for the benefits of the project, in this model, project participants are compensated on a cost-plus basis where the owner guarantees the direct cost, but a portion of the profit and participants bonuses are dependent on the project outcome (AIA, 2007). These factors allow individuals to work closely within the team, collaborate better and achieve project goals within the required time and cost.

5. Target value Design Macomber and Barberio (2007) state how value is defined within the Target-Value Design (TVD) process, to the client and the project stakeholders. Targets are set out on the project, with regards time, cost and location. By following this logic, the feasibility of the project can be determined early on, and whether the requirements determined can be delivered within the constraints set out. Thus allowing for the construction targets to be achieved and the design correctly steered, by the project team at the early stages of the design.

6. Lean Concepts McGraw Hill (2013) state that Lean construction has many tools and techniques that enable people to support IPD implementation on projects. Lean provides the means for teams to maximise their performance, minimise waste and achieve project goals by using Lean ‘tools’ such as Last Planner System (LPS) and TVD (discussed above). This optimises project outcomes by achieving client project requirements and ultimately, the product delivered to them. Other key tenets of lean include:

Page 30 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail



Focusing on delivering value



Remove obstacles that prevent value/flow



Eliminate anything that does not add value



Incorporate value engineering from the start



Encourage idea sharing across all disciplines



Manage work to optimise the ‘whole’ rather than the ‘parts’

7. Project Information Management Hardin and McCool (2015) reveal how project information management (PIM) tools are key enablers as they facilitate the natural ‘flow’ of information between all project stakeholders. Eg. It facilitates BIM workflow in streamlining the IPD process by immediate and up-to-date information and communication flow within the project team. A PIM system may be a web-based centralised database used by the team. The system defines the programmes and projects, cost, time, scope and quality, and it crucially defines the team, people, organisations and their roles. It also helps managing IPD contractual documentation. For project team members who are unable to co-locate from their original workspaces, PIM tools are a prerequisite for project collaboration. Today IPD, BIM and lean is a viable option for many projects where traditional delivery methods would yield suboptimal results, and project teams are properly prepared for challenges, demands and benefits. This research is designed to accomplish both through detailed procedural explanation and case studies demonstrating the implementation of lean and IPD to BIM projects, creating buildings as deserving of modern, high-performance methodologies that best realise the tremendous value they create for society.

2.3.5 IPD Barriers and Challenges The IPDA (2017) state that to implement IPD on a project for the first time, many challenges (and barriers) will need to be addressed such as culture, lack of skilled people, contractual agreements, technology and interoperability, lack of IPD knowledge and cost of implementation. Even decades after the publication of the Latham (1994) and Egan (1998) reports, construction still has a tendency to operate within a ‘silo’ mentality, and overcoming this attitude is still a major, ongoing challenge within the UK construction industry. This is reaffirmed by Deutsch (2011), as he states:

“Mutual respect, trust, sharing of information –all human factors- are critical for success in IPD. The key is to have respect, trust and commonality of purpose”. Page 31 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

The AIA (2010) state that many advocates of IPD in the US, tell that risk is better understood and that with IPD, the relationship is an important determinant to success. It is common knowledge that those who work within the AEC industry are primarily conservative and risk-averse when it comes to money, their businesses and learning new technologies (Deutsch, 2011). Here IPD can enable clients to lock in the lower cost during the early stages of design rather than waiting until construction documents have been completed to a high level of detail, eg. RIBA Stage 4.

Deutsch (2011) goes on to state that with IPD and BIM, there is a lot to learn and that it is important (if not vital) to ‘unlearn’ certain processes to allow IPD and BIM to work effectively. He states:

“You need to unlearn the old software and workflows and learn the new paradigm”.

The AIA Minnesota (2012) show how IPD together with BIM allows Architects and contractors to think early on about the ‘constructability’ of a detail when building a virtual model of it so that it doesn’t fall. With the added benefit that liability is lessoned because the detail is well thought-out in advance. Some key barriers to IPD adoption are analysed below.

Cultural barriers: This refers to the unwillingness of the industry to vary from its traditional methods of approaching and executing construction projects. This is primarily due to organisations having become (overtime) accustomed to their own methods and techniques of project leadership. Eg. having the mindset that “we’ve always done it this way”.

Financial barriers: The AIA (2010) list the challenges of selecting incentives and compensations for a project and its participants. This is unique to the characteristics (risk/reward) of an IPD form of contract. Another barrier may be due to the implementation of BIM technologies for 3d modelling and a Common Data Environment (CDE) for information sharing, as this will require a high level of up-front investment in terms of software, hardware, training (up-skilling) and changing work procedures and workflows (Eastman et al. 2011). Hence, an IPD procurement method for project delivery may require a large investment in terms of financial and digital infrastructure.

Page 32 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Legal barriers: In order to increase collaboration, many IPD contracts ignore or reduce the ability of project stakeholders to sue one another (Nichani, 2016). With regards insurance and liability, there are many contractual and legal changes required in order to facilitate an IPD approach on a project. The contractual â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;languageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; on an IPD project is still very new to industry and will take much time to implement due to the considerable shift from traditional contracts (AIA, 2007).

Technological barriers: There are many concerns in the use of such integrated digital technologies on IPD projects, such as the interoperability and the legal ownership of information (data), such as 3d models. Multidisciplinary 3d BIM models will require multi-user access between the team, hence a high level of technical expertise is required to produce project information, as opposed to the traditional method of project delivery.

Key Findings The key findings of the literature review show a keen desire to utilise collaborative project strategies (and even shared risk/rewards) through the use of IPD and BIM, may now be changing the style of construction procurement. Even though a traditional contract may be in place within these delivery styles, it could be argued that a greater onus is gradually being steered towards a more holistic approach to delivering projects, especially with the early involvement of key project stakeholders. To consider what makes good (and bad) projects, it is important to consider how a project would be delivered if it was undertaken in the modern-day, digital environment as this will allow comparisons to be made against traditional delivery methods. Fischer et al. (2017) notes that it is important not to underestimate the advancement of technologies that support project delivery and management, such as IPD, BIM and Lean philosophies.

Page 33 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

CHAPTER 3.0 Research Methodology 3.1 Introduction

The research methodology used is important as it is a means or procedure for gathering data and supports the types of questions that can be tackled and the nature of the evidence gathered. For example, chapter 2.0 presented a detailed review of literature around the practical benefits of an IPD approach to construction including the challenges involved using real-world examples. It is vitally important to consider the available approaches that can be utilised to achieve the aims and objectives for this research. As detailed by Yin (1994), the most appropriate research strategy to adopt is dependent upon the type of research being undertaken (i.e. what, when, how), the amount of control that a researcher is able to have over the involved variables and whether the research is focused on past or current methodologies. Obtaining these data can involve several data collection techniques such as questionnaires, interviews, and observation etc., as well as making use of secondary data. However, the selection of techniques used to obtain data, along with procedures to analyse these data, represents only the final decision about the overall research.

According to Saunders et al. (2012) the research process can be represented as an onion. Hence, the metaphor of the ‘Research Onion’ (below) is used to illustrate how all these elements are considered. Several layers and approaches are available and must be consistently employed when conducting research. In accordance with the research, considerations on several issues must be taken into account before the central point and core of the onion (the data collection and data analysis) is addressed.

Fig. 9: The Research ‘Onion’, Saunders et al. (2015) Page 34 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

3.2

Research Philosophy

Saunders et al. (2012), presented the ‘Research Onion’ model and it’s influence on the methodology for undertaking the proposed research work. The Research Onion model illustrates metaphorically the way different elements involved in the research need to be examined so that a research design can be derived. The research onion illustrates how these final elements (the core of the research onion) need to be considered in relation to other elements (ie. the outer layers of the onion).

According to Saunders et al. (2012), there are four different philosophical branches that define the presence of a research entity; the first in Positivism, the second is Realism, the third is Interpretivism and the fourth is Pragmatism. To illustrate how these final elements (the outer layers of the research onion) need to be considered in relation to other elements (the core of the research onion). It is the outer layers that provide the context and boundaries within which data collection techniques and analysis procedures are selected (Saunders and Tosey, 2013).

The philosophical stance of research undertaken is highlighted within the research onion’s outermost layer, and the implications of these elements for the overall research including data collection techniques and analysis procedures. However, unlike outer layers of an onion, which are simply discarded as unnecessary, explicit consideration of these elements is crucial to the development of an appropriate and coherent research which can both be both justified and explained. Within this research, we start at the outermost layer offering an overview of different research philosophies and their implications for the research undertaken. We then ‘peel back’ each of the subsequent layers considering the implications of methodological choice and strategies.

Pragmatism The research philosophy undertaken was is to adopt the philosophy of Pragmatism, and this was due to the importance of the research within the findings’ practical consequences, (Saunders et al. 2009). This considers that no single practical viewpoint can give the ‘entire picture’ and is primarily based on real-world research with methods, techniques and procedures associated with quantitative or qualitative research. Saunders et al. (2009) states:

“It applies a practical approach integrating different perspectives to help collect and interpret data.”

Page 35 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Deductive & Inductive Deductive and inductive are the two terms that the second layer of the research onion includes. It is the research approach that identifies the foundation of the research strategy and provides direction to the research methods (Saunders and Tosey, 2013). This approach is differentiated into two parts: inductive and deductive. In the inductive method, the aim is to find the answers to the questions raised at the start of the research, and in the deduction process various theories are scanned along with the research questions. It further leads to gathering data and ultimately the confirmation or rejection of the research questions. If the researcher wants to create their own theory, then the inductive method is used. This point in the research onion works in the opposite way of the deductive method. Here the focus is on the working title of the theory right from the very beginning. Hence, little thought is given to an existing theory, and interviews are used to facilitate the collection of information necessary for devising new theories.

Time Horizon The final layer of the research onion, before reaching the core, highlights the time horizon over which the researcher undertakes the research (Saunders and Tosey, 2013). Where research is undertaken to answer a question or address a problem at a particular time this ’snapshot’ in time is cross-sectional and is likely to make use of strategies such as surveys or case studies. The shortcoming of these cross-sectional surveys are their confinement to a particular point in time – this means they offer a snapshot of a sample population at a particular point in time. Conversely, where answering the question or addressing the problem necessitates data being collected for an extended period of time, the researcher is longitudinal, being likely to make particular use of strategies such as experiment, action research, grounded theory and archival research. Hence, the research study adopted here is a cross-sectional research strategy which identifies the opinions of a ‘cross-section’ of the population.

Saunders and Tosey (2013) describe how the focus on the ‘core’ of the research onion is on the research methods adopted, which is fundamental and critical decision pointer. There are different ways through which the research method can be selected. The first is the mono method whereby a single data collection techniques is utilised followed by corresponding qualitative or quantitative analysis procedure (Bryson et al. 2014). The second is the multi-method, whereby multiple methods are used for arriving at the final analysis. The analysis of the multi-method can either be various data collection methods within a given type of data analysis or the use of mixed methods of research (ie. both quantitative and qualitative). According to Saunders et al. (2012), in the case of multi-method

Page 36 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

qualitative data, multiple qualitative data collection techniques like in-depth interviews are used along with related analysis procedures. In mixed-method research there can be both quantitative (data collection) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) data collection methods used.

3.3 Research Approach and Strategy Consideration must be given to the correct approach utilised to achieve the aims and objectives of this research. The term ‘research approach’ does not only consider the information collated as discussed by Winch et al. (2006), but it is also key to acknowledge an ‘approach’ is not simply the type of data used, rather it refers to the whole orientation of the research and types of claims made by the researcher. Hence consideration into the practical methods of data collection needs to be given and decisions made on whether the dissertation will be empirically or theoretically driven, or a combination of both.

To determine the approach strategy for this research project, the appropriate place to begin would be to evaluate both the advantages and disadvantages of qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Quantitative and qualitative are two research approaches that look at the world through different lenses. The quantitative approach is interested in objectivity and generalisation of the results, whilst the qualitative approach wants to understand the experience of a phenomena through exploratory research to gain an understanding of the underlying reasons, opinions and motivations. Within qualitative research, the researcher is ‘primary’, which means all data is compiled and analysed by the researcher. Within a quantitative approach, the data is the ‘primary’ focus. This allows a hypothesis to be determined using the literature review whereas a quantitative approach would place the emphasis on the subject rather than the method used (Campbell, 2014).

Quantitative data is also faster to obtain and can be obtained in large quantities and is generally easier to present visually. It is also argued by Campbell (2014) that a disadvantage to qualitative research is that the presence of a researcher in the data gathering process is unavoidable and can directly influence the responses of the participant, in quantitative terms this would be considered as contaminating the data.

Using objectives from chapter one as an example, undertaking an empirical approach would be crucial in order to allow the researcher to evaluate meaning from the responses received. If a

Page 37 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

quantitative approach were utilised, such as multiple-choice questionnaires, it would not be possible to obtain an in-depth answer. Additionally, if an unexpected pattern of answers emerge from the semi-structured interviews, it would be the case that this information would not have emerged if a questionnaire was used instead.

An empirical approach to research is not measured using numerical data, but instead using social constructs, opinions and direct/indirect observations in current practices. Penn State University (2019) describe empirical data as being: “Based on observed and measured phenomena and derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief”.

An example of this would be objective no.1, to explore the extent and usage of IPD within industry. Here we would consider existing knowledge and understanding of IPD and BIM using the phrase ‘collaborative project strategies’. Due to the depth of responses, the data received is likely to be beyond the reach of numerical data and is likely to contain varying levels of knowledge and opinions.

Due to a short timeframe, a quantitative research approach would allow for a large number of results to be accumulated over a wider population. Conversely, Sheragy (2010) states that a disadvantage to quantitative research is the “limited ability to probe answers”. This means that although a quantitative research tool such as questionnaires will deliver a personal opinion from respondents, it is not possible for the researcher to react to answers or data received.

It may be appropriate to 'triangulate' both qualitative and quantitative methods, ie. to back-up one set of findings from one method of data collection underpinned by one methodology, with another very different method underpinned by another methodology - for example, sending out a questionnaire (normally quantitative) to gather statistical data about responses, and then backing this up with research in more depth by interviewing (normally qualitative) selected members of the questionnaire sample. This means that the research approach considered is an ‘inductive’ approach as the outcomes will provide new theories and encourage testing on current projects, rather than just the ‘testing of existing ones.

Page 38 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

3.4

Qualitative Semi-structured Interviews

The chosen method of research is qualitative (mono-method) using case study analysis, and the data analysis validated by semi-structured interviews with experts from the construction industry. Interviews are the most common method of data collection (Taylor, 2005) and semi-structured interviews are the most consistently used interview style in qualitative research (Bloom and Crabtree, 2006).

The interviews can begin with closed answer questions for classification purposes, followed by standard open answer questions. Prompts can be given to stimulate further discussion and to help interviewees to provide personal views, opinions and experiences regarding their exposure to IPD, BIM and lean within their job roles. The interview questions will be delivered using standard script to maintain similarity in delivery so that responses can be analysed accurately and fairly. The questions will be formulated in a way so they are equally accessible to each interviewee to allow them to understand the question and provide valuable and unique answers.

Kallio et al. (2016) asserts that there are five phases that should be considered in order to achieve success when undertaking semi-structured interviews, and these are:

1. Identifying the prerequisites for using semi-structured interviews. 2. Retrieving and using previous knowledge. 3. Formulating the preliminary semi-structured interview guide. 4. Pilot testing the interview guide. 5. Presenting the complete semi-structured interview guide.

The above will act as a ‘quick guide’ for when preparing for semi-structured interviews as part of the research project. An example would be to present the interview questions, topics and findings together in a table format and insert these within the appendices. Although it will not contain the entirety of the interview, it will however, outline all topic areas discussed with key responses. This format will allow the researcher to quickly collate and compare results in relation to prior knowledge and experience. Interviewees will be selected due to: 

Their varying experience and position within the UK AEC construction industry.



Their proximity/usage/knowledge of ‘collaborative project strategies’ (IPD and BIM).

Page 39 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail



Extent of ‘collaborative project strategies’ on current BIM projects.



Position as key stakeholders with regards to BIM usage.

Interview questions can be determined through an analysis of key issues raised from the literature review and analysis of the case studies. This will be designed to examine which enablers of IPD, BIM and lean are currently being used, as well as the personal experiences regarding collaboration on BIM projects. A list of possible participants is drawn up with the aim to to undertake a minimum of four semi-structured interviews which will be an average of 30mins duration. The interview question are delivered using standard script. This maintains similarity in question delivery so that responses are analysed accurately and fairly. Question are structured and developed to cover IPD and BIM, including there practical application and implementation.

Page 40 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

3.5 Thematic Analysis Thematic analysis is one of the most common forms of analysis in qualitative research. It emphasizes pinpointing, examining, and recording patterns (or "themes") within data. These themes are ‘patterns’ across data sets that are important to the description of a phenomenon and are associated to a specific research question. It is a data analysis process that qualitative researchers use to generate theme from interviews; it can be utilised for case studies, generic and narrative data analysis. With regards ease of use, Braun and Clarke (2013) described thematic analysis as:

“Perfect for both the novice and expert qualitative researchers because the steps are easy to follow but rigorous enough to generate meaningful findings from the data received”.

Communication Challenges/ Tradition

Profit/Loss

Transparency

Project Outcomes

TRUST

Rework Minimised

Co-location

COLLABORATION

BIM

Upskilling & Training

Shared Risk & Reward

IPD One Team

Transparency

CHANGE

CLIENT

“We’ve always done it this way” Design Team

Training Benefits

Fig. 10: Adapted Thematic Analysis Chart; A method for identifying and analysing patterns (or themes) within IPD research data

Page 41 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

3.6 Ethical Considerations and Research Conduct According to Myers (2013), ethical issues should be carefully handled throughout the research, especially during the collection and analysis of data. Hence, it is critical to determine ethics and research conduct for the proposed study from the outset (at research proposal stage). Ethics encompasses concepts and principles of ‘right conduct’ and is defined as: “not committing any deed that definitely and deliberately harms others” (Ellis and Baxter, 1982). This encompasses the importance of seeking ethical approval and undertaking research in a careful and moral way. It should also be noted that ethics plays a vital role holistically in dissertation writing. For example, scientific honesty, avoiding bias in experimental design and respecting intellectual property are all critical aspects of ethical research conduct.

A key component of ethically behaviour is informed consent. Anyone assisting in the research will receive a clear statement of what the research is about, what it involves, and what their part is. If they are willing to take part they will be asked to confirm this in writing. Anyone involved in an interview or focus group will be offered the option of remaining anonymous. Should a person withdraw their consent after having first given it, this will be fully respected, and in turn the withdrawal of consent will automatically render any data provided unusable. As well as carrying out good ethical practices throughout the entirety of the research process, it is important to consider the practical steps that will be undertaken. These will include:

1. Participant Information sheet: Details of proposed study. An invitation to take part and overall purpose and aim of the research. Additionally, the information sheet will explain the benefits of taking part in the study as well as describing data protection. 2. Participant consent form: A consent form will be created that will be sent to participants that have agreed to take part. The form will cover key information in a simple tick-box format, with a signature required. 3. Health and Safety considerations: for example, site safety rules are to be observed, and reporting any necessary information to the dissertation supervisor. 4. Relevant documentation: consent form outlining research participants and the SOBE application form will be submitted to the University for approval before any interviews.

The submitted ethical forms will be presented within the appendice of the final dissertation to allow the reader to review the process followed.

Page 42 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

3.7

Summary

The aim of this research study is to achieve the primary objectives set out in chapter one; designing a ‘bespoke’ research to an answer a question, or address a problem is invariably constrained both by what is practicable and, of equal importance, what is ethical. This research highlights how, within the design, an understanding of the outer layers of research philosophy, possible methodological choice, strategies and the time horizon and their inter-relationships are important. Saunders and Tosey (2013) reaffirm this view, by stating:

“These help ensure that the course of data collection techniques and analysis procedures used in the research undertaken are both appropriate and coherent”.

Overall, when considering the inherent issues from the aims and objectives are not entirely capable of objective measurement, it is concluded that a ‘positivist’ stance should not be implemented for a favourable analysis. Resulting from this is the conclusion that a ‘realist’ stance will be adopted due to the social aspect and human perspective of the intended outcomes. This in turn means that the research approach can be considered as an ‘inductive’ approach, as the final outcomes of the research is to provide new theories, encouragement and the implementation of an IPD approach to construction procurement in the UK.

Page 43 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

CHAPTER 4.0 Data Collection 4.1 Introduction

This chapter of the research briefly looks at industry perception of IPD and presents/analyses the responses from the semi-structured interviews undertaken with industry professionals currently employed within public and private sectors in the UK and abroad.

4.2 Industry perception of IPD IPD (along with BIM) have similar roots in that both have emerged since the turn of the century as a result of the dissatisfaction of many client/owners of those in the design and construction industry with the perceived inefficiencies associated with the traditional methods available to delivering construction projects. And IPD and BIM have been proposed by governments and private sector clients to address and resolve the perceived inefficiencies in the construction industry. IPDA (2017) produced an informative guide to understanding the dynamic nature of IPD and the building industry and state within their opening preface:

“Over the past decade, IPD has emerged as an important alternative to traditional forms of project delivery. Its adherents have reported improvements in cost, schedule, and quality, achieved in an atmosphere that is less adversarial and more collaborative”.

The rise of IPD in the US, along with BIM and lean within the last 10-15 years and a keen desire to utilise collaborative delivery methods (including shared risks and rewards) may eventually change the current style of project management. The trade-offs that are always part of the design process can be best evaluated using these methods – cost, energy, functionality, aesthetics and buildability. Thus IPD and BIM go together and represent a clear break with the current ‘linear’ processes that are based on traditional forms of information exchange (Eastman et al. 2011).

The AEC industry is fragmented, inefficient and adversarial because in the standard method of delivery each team is responsible for its own work and attempts to maximise their individual profits. And IPD is a new project delivery method that addresses the problems of inefficiency, and adversarial relations within the AEC industry (Gerber et al. 2011). IPDA (2017) state that IPD can provide superior project outcomes over a wide range of project types, but it is not appropriate for every type of project or client. Because IPD is cost-based and team-managed, it inherently requires Page 44 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

greater leadership and administration up-front than a traditional lump-sum project. And although many IPD projects have been successfully performed with participants who have never previously undertaken IPD projects, prior experience is beneficial.

4.3 Sampling - Interviews Whilst undertaking this research, all interviewee/participants were currently working in multidisciplinary design and engineering organisations of varying size. Interview questions were determined through analysis and key issues raised from literature and the analysis of the casestudies. Interview questions were designed to examine which enablers of IPD and BIM were currently being used in practice, as well as personal experiences regarding team collaboration and their exposure to any new ways of working. Due to the current lack of knowledge of IPD in the UK, the phrase ‘collaborative project strategies’ was used in place of IPD within the interview questions for purposes of enhanced discussion and feedback. A breakdown of participant details is as follows:

Participant 1 – Assistant BIM Manager: working for several years for a privately owned multidisciplinary design organisation. The company has three offices around the UK and many more internationally. Projects vary in size and type with most work currently within the areas of process engineering, data centres and specialist research and medical laboratories. The company is looking to obtain BIM Level 2 Certification with most staff working within a collaborative BIM environment.

Participant 2 – Senior Architect: with 20+ years’ experience working for various local authorities in the North West of England, currently working as part of a large multi-disciplinary design unit within Lancashire’s largest local authority. Projects consists mostly of education facilities and existing local authority assets such as libraries and community centres. Most staff are still working using 2d cad and email output for project information exchanges and have yet to implement digital tools for both 3d design output/collaboration and information exchanges using a CDE.

Participant 3 – Architectural Designer & BIM Lead: currently employed by a global architecture and design firm in India, originally founded in New York City. With more than 1,000 employees in 17 interdisciplinary offices around the world, working on healthcare, mixed-use, education, healthcare, residential, sports and transport/infrastructure projects. They have full BIM capability with regards digital tools used on all projects for design collaboration, coordination and information exchange.

Page 45 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Participant 4 – BIM Manager & Implementation: currently employed by a large contractors in London for the past 3 years to implement BIM to in-house and site-wide project teams. Managing all BIM documents and processes from external consultants and internal supply-chain for BIM Level 2 capability. Utilising a diverse range of digital BIM tools for purposes of 3d model auditing, 4d construction simulation, design/clash coordination, VR and managing live project BEPS and EIRs.

This section will be structured so that the findings and corresponding analysis are reviewed within the same section, with each section broken down into topic areas from the semi-structured interviews (listed above) and will be followed by a ‘discussion’ which will allow all data collected to be analysed alongside the findings from the literature review.

4.4 Findings from Interview Responses The Thematic Analysis Chart below is used to identify and analyse key (repeating) themes within interview responses and data analysis undertaken during the research. It helps to identify key IPD and BIM themes and patterns across the area of research undertaken.

Fig. 11: Adapted Thematic Analysis Chart highlighting key issues raised during interviews.

Page 46 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Level of IPD understanding Before considering which participants were using IPD (if any), it was crucial to ascertain each of their knowledge/exposure and understanding of IPD through carefully structured questions, and this was achieved by using the phrase ‘collaborative project strategies’ during early in the interview process. Participant 2 (local authority Architect) had the least knowledge of both BIM and IPD within the context of the UK BIM Level 2 mandate, although all were familiar with digital tools such as Revit and Navisworks. The remaining three participants shared a high level of BIM understanding, but with only an ‘academic’ knowledge of IPD, hence all had no experience of utilising IPD on projects. A common theme between these three participants was their use of IPD ‘enablers’ on projects such as BIM, CDE and lean concepts (Big Room). Although none of the interviewees had experience of Painsharing and Gain-sharing (risk sharing and incentives).

All participants appreciated the need for better collaboration on projects, and this was emphasised during the interview by phrases such as ‘collaboration’, ‘coordination’, ‘supporting/sharing’, and ‘efficiency’. This immediately suggested that the possible lack of use of IPD was due to knowledge and training, and a lack of suitable contracts (such as IFOA, multi-party agreement). All participants agreed that there was benefit behind the idea of ‘collective risk management’, but due to the traditional approach to construction the main focus for all organisations was to make profit.

Cultural Change/Adaptability All participants agreed that cultural changes was a major obstacle to implementing collaborative project strategies such as IPD on projects. And all agreed that most people in the construction industry were still not interested in change due to traditional delivery methods in place, or having worked in silo for many years within industry. Hence, all agreed that a new delivery method such as IPS would be difficult to implement as this would require many challenges such as up-skilling/ training in BIM tools, group collaboration on 3d models and shared risk/reward incentives.

Participant 1 believed that BIM and IPD would drive collaboration within construction in the future and suggested that “IPD project teams could be created by either employing BIM ‘savvy’ individuals or developing employee skills in-house”. Participant 1 also noted that it may takes many years for a system such as IPD to transpire as BIM had only recently becoming more recognised in industry the way forward which is forcing many organisations now having to play ‘catch-up’.

Page 47 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Technology

Process & Procedures

Cultural Change The Challenges Fig. 12: Key Challenges in Implementing an IPD/BIM Strategy, by B. Kumar (2015)

BIM & Technology Except for Participant 2 (local authority Architect), all interviewees were found to be using building information modelling tools such are Revit/Navisworks. The use of such tools was found to be higher in those organisations where there was a dedicated BIM Manager or BIM Lead. Participants 3 and 4 where utilising the highest level of BIM tools including 4D planning, VR and cost analysis/scheduling. Participant 1 was using Revit and Navisworks for information exchanges and coordination only. This increase in the use of BIM (in private organisations) is highlighted in the graph below â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it illustrates how BIM has gone from a niche specialism nearly 10 years ago to the standard norms of design and construction. BIM has improved efficiency and has demonstrated how digital transformation and collaboration can quickly and radically change existing ways of working (Ismail, 2018).

Fig. 13: The rise of BIM adoption since 2010 within the UK (RIBA, 2018) Page 48 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

During discussion around BIM, the private organisations who had now implemented BIM tools and processes had suggested that adoption/switch-over was initially very difficult, and that they viewed the ‘change-over’ to collaborative project strategies such as IPD would require a longer time in adoption, than BIM. The differentiation in learning a new digital tool against sharing risk/reward and collaboration was highlighted as to the reasons for the lengthier time span.

Collaboration Participants were asked to discuss the level of success of collaboration within their organisations. Participants 1, 3 and 4 described a high level of collaboration through the use of BIM tools for sharing and coordination information. Participant 1 noted that “BIM provides the opportunity to collaborate more closely on all digital matters on a project”. Participant 2 highlighted the need for a ‘top-down’ approach for such collaboration to occur and cited cost as a barrier to implementation.

Participant 4 had noted that BIM had enabled better collaboration and coordination to occur on projects by using BIM Level 2 process and digital tools and cited that “co-location had been beneficial on a recent project”. Participant 4 also highlighted the benefits of better collaboration when teams were brought together earlier on a project to help evaluate design/details and clash-coordination. Regarding level of collaboration on projects, it is seen that that companies with the greater level of BIM implementation with regards up-skilling, digital tools, BIM processes and procedures showed the highest level of collaboration within the office environment and on projects. Participant 3 has cited that “Technology such as Revit/VR had been exciting to implement and has been positively received by all staff”.

Fig. 14: An example of the “BIG Room” fosters Collaboration (www.leanconstruction.org) Page 49 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Up-Skilling/Training Participant 2 highlighted their concerns regarding cost for implementing BIM and collaborative project strategies such as IPD, and citied that “Revit training has been discussed with senior management, but had yet to be implemented”. The remaining participants who worked for private organisations saw the greatest shift towards up-skilling and training due to the wide range of digital BIM tools used on projects for 3d modelling, 4d logistics and cost evaluation and buildability. Hence, the level of BIM technology was fairly consistent using 3d BIM software. However the use of BIM processes, such as UK BIM Level 2 standards, was only used by participant 4. Interestingly, although Participate 2 worked for one of the largest local authorities in the North West of England, they had the least BIM use in the office or on projects, this is possibly due to lack of local government funding. The lack of formal BIM implementation was highlighted as a major concern that would hinder collaborative and integrated working.

Financial Incentives (Shared Risk & Reward) All participants agreed that the concept of shared risk/reward was still ‘alien’ within the construction industry. And that formal contracts would need to be written to allow these incentives to happen. Participant 1 agreed that without financial incentives he could not foresee any large organisations making the changes required to move to a more collaborative approach to working, primarily due to traditional ways of working and the fragmented and siloed approach to constructing buildings. Participant 2 has noted that (in the past) there had been an attempt to use more integrated procurement methods on education projects, such as the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), and the recent Building Schools for the Future (BSF) projects in the UK, however these methods had not had a significant impact with regards to time and cost savings or better project collaboration and management. Hence, an alternative approach such as IPD and BIM would be welcomed.

Summary Overall, all the participants appreciated that in a profit driven market such as construction, it was unrealistic to expect everyone to enforce (or follow) a collaborative approach to construction, like that of IPD where they would be ‘forced’ to share their own profits in a shared risk/reward contract. But all agreed that IPD was worth consideration if it were managed from the top-down with a comprehensive implementation plan, similar to UK governments BIM Level 2 programme. And they also agreed that when capable people come together, and agree to work in a standardised way, that helps each other, following defined processes that contributes to rather than hinder progress, then true ‘collaboration’ is achieved.

Page 50 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

4.5 Comparison between Interview Responses, Case Studies & Literature Review

The combined findings from the literature reviews, case studies, participant interviews and lessons learned are reflected upon with key aspects summarised within this section of the research.

The collective research undertaken has clearly revealed the many benefits of using an IPD approach to construction. IPD seems to be the ideal environment to fully realise (and compliment) the current movement towards BIM within the UK. Through lessons learned on previous IPD projects in the US, along with participants interviews, the benefits of IPD can now be better understood with feedback received from key stakeholders such as the client, Architect and contractor.

It appears from the research that barriers and challenges for an IPD approach and BIM are quite often behavioural and less to do with technology and processes. Those within the construction industry find it hard to adopt due to the cultural change or ‘mind-set’ needed to fully realise the benefits that IPD has to offer when you have people in the industry who have spent most of their working life in the same way day-in day-out. Hence, it is only inevitable that there will be resistance to any new ideology such as IPD or other forms of change management.

IPD combined with BIM and lean has now been proven to have shown tangible benefits that can be received for all project stakeholders, but the data analysis shows these benefits are still not being fully realised due to some (or all) of the following: 

Cultural change is difficult to overcome due to the existing traditional processes in place.



Lack of knowledge and training within the UK, in IPD and lean concepts and methodologies.



Lack of evidence of the UK business value of IPD and its Return on Investment (ROI).



Lack of UK evidence of the financial value of IPD to the client, Architect and contractor.



Lack of UK case studies using an IPD approach to construction procurement.



Championing IPD – finding a way forward for promoting IPD adoption within the UK.

The success of IPD implementation within the US has shown to have led designers and contractors to ‘re-engineer’ their processes, and this is evident by the pilot projects that made early and intensive use of IPD. The success and positive impact of IPD is now evident within construction procurement (Eastman et al. 2011).

Page 51 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

An interviewee made a key point that once people within the construction industry get past the fact that IPD (along with BIM) is not purely a technological innovation, but a combination of People/Process and Technology, involving collaboration within a ‘digitised’ team effort - only then will it become easier for industry-wide adoption to occur.

The research has shown that collaborative project strategies must be driven at the highest level by client/owners and senior management, but unfortunately they often don’t have the knowledge, understanding, nor the will to change existing working patterns. The lack of up-skilling and training was also mentioned in more than once instance by participants and this is also a key element to be found in the literature - how can industry expect the masses to switch to new collaborative project strategies, such as IPD and BIM without sufficient guidance and training in such methods?

Organisations will need to consider and plan for additional costs (and resource) if they are to realise the benefits of using an IPD approach. Hence, a training programme at both organisational level and project level would be needed. At organisational level, the training would be directed towards using IPD to help change the cultural barriers that exist and for collaboration to ensue. At project level, training would be provided to individuals to allow for team-based collaboration to develop and for the right people to come together using the right tools at the right time.

Information Technology plays an important role in enabling an IPD approach with BIM. Issues relating to interoperability were common in the case study analysis and during participant interviews. This was common due to a lack of knowledge and the skill-sets of team members. Open BIM standards is clearly something that is required for true project collaboration, and organisations such as Building Smart have helped reduce problems with regards cross-platform software interoperability. The research has shown that finding the right people, who are both proactive and willing to learn, collaborate, and happy to share information throughout the project is vitally important. Therefore the team working on the project should be selected specifically for their previous experience of using IPD and their willingness to collaborate as a coherent team.

Another common challenge to implementing an IPD approach is the allocation of risk. To bring together a diverse group of professionals, for the first time, on a project and asking them to share equal risk and reward is always going to be difficult. The case studies have shown that the use of such incentives is becoming a part of equity relationships with clients with contracts stating the distribution of benefits and penalties, and a good example of this was the Sutter Health Integrated

Page 52 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Form of Agreement (IFOA) with its pain and gain sharing (Eastman et al. 2011). This is one example, but research shows that people are still not interested in change as they are happy to continue using traditional contractual agreements within their discipline siloes along with existing processes. Using a new delivery method such as IPD would not only be difficult to implement, but would also require a fundamental cultural change in current ‘collaborative behaviours’ in order for it to be adopted.

Interviewees also noted their concerns with regards the legal issues surrounding an IPD approach to construction, as traditional contracts in the UK were not suitable for such projects and to deal with this issue, specific contracts written to suit IPD would need to be written and more importantly accepted by industry. US case studies have shown that contractually everyone should win by using an IPD contract due to the joint-financial incentives involved and the collaborative risk/reward nature of the contract.

Waste and rework were also common themes that appeared several times within the case studies and interview discussions. An IPD approach to project delivery reduces time, cost and helps manage user expectations (Fischer et al. 2017). It is not uncommon to see between 30-40% waste of different resources under a traditional project delivery process (Eastman et al. 2011). Any improvement on this by having IPD centric processes involved can benefit all project stakeholders. The reduction in rework when compared to a traditional project was one reason for this.

Importantly, BIM aids cross-discipline coordination process to take place which is often the main cause of significant errors (and rework) on site and at additional cost. When the team is working collaboratively within a BIM environment there is only one ‘single source of the truth’, ie. the BIM model. Therefore costly errors are more likely to be dealt with early on in the project before any site activity begins. Team selection must be undertaken at the earliest stage possible and the client must drive this process. Even before the designers and contractor comes on board, the client must understand the level of collaboration required, the type of contract that facilitates collaboration and the team’s respective capabilities with regards BIM, digital technologies and lean expertise.

IPD without BIM Although it is possible to compete an IPD project without the use of BIM, BIM is the ‘catalyst’ for effectively achieving the collaboration required for IPD. It is also worth noting that there are still organisations claiming to be ‘doing BIM’, but are merely using 3d software tools to replace existing

Page 53 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

2d cad workflows. The traditional approaches to design and construction does not allow full collaboration to take place within these teams even where BIM technologies are used.

Traditional approaches introduce many risks to the client and contractor, where there is no single point of responsibility, single source of truth (BIM model) or accountability, ie. The designers starts the 3d model, and the contractor finishes it. Hence, the contractor must come on-board the project much earlier in the process and IPD allows this to happen. Most BIM enabled projects in the UK are still using traditional methods of procurement with regards technology and information sharing. This needs to change to realise the benefits of IPD. This is supported by Fischer et al. (2017), who states:

“IPD and BIM are different concepts; the first is a process and the second a tool”.

Although, the AIA (2012) contradicts this view by telling us that IPD projects are undertaken with BIM, and that BIM is used in an ‘integrated process’, however the full potential (and benefits) of both IPD and BIM can only be achieved when they are used together.

We have now shown that a successful BIM project requires collaboration and that an IPD approach can help instigate this collaboration by bringing together all stakeholders together from the start of the project, and by having a ‘mechanism’ where risk and rewards are shared. This encourages the whole team to work together in achieving project outcomes, and not within the silos commonly associated with traditional ways of working.

From the interview discussions, it was noted that as well as a collaborative working environment, a Common Data Environment (CDE) was also a crucial element for the successful delivery of projects with regards information sharing. This would allow for the transparency of information exchanges to happen between all team members and for cross-discipline coordination to occur, with less abortive work as well as increased visibility for the client and contractor. Organisations with these structures in place can inform better design outcomes and reduce the risks of delay (AIA, 2012).

Cultural change is required. There needs to be less of “they’ll sort it out on site” attitude that currently plagues the construction industry. Designers and contractors must come together early to better develop the end ‘product’ by using innovative solutions such as IPD and BIM and this will in turn allow teams to improve professional services, project deliverables and cost certainty to clients which can only be a ‘win-win’ for all concerned.

Page 54 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

In the UK, the future for BIM has become a lot more brighter over the past few years since the governments BIM mandate came into force in 2016, but to fully realise the benefits of an IPD approach much more work still needs to be done. With a willingness to change, all project stakeholders can reap many more benefits than just what technology has to offer.

BIM has now ‘sold’ itself to industry as construction has traditionally been regarded as being inefficient and wasteful, hence change was inevitable, although an IPD approach will be a much more difficult ‘sell’ to industry. Hence, the use of IPD with BIM may perhaps be the next logical step to true project collaboration and further improve the design and construction process, and help reduce waste, rework, siloed working and the hostility towards collaboration and transparency.

It is interesting to see other governments around the world now following the UK’s BIM mandate with regards national standards, however there is still a long way to go before IPD or similar collaborative project strategies are formerly used for construction procurement in the UK, and this was evident from the participant answers during interviews, as none were involved or had heard of IPD, despite most projects being undertaken within a BIM environment. What was surprising is that one out of the four interviewees had some knowledge of IPD, although all had stated the same problem issues of lack of transparency, collaboration and integration, and perhaps IPD may be able to solve some of these issues in the future.

IPD is still a long way from becoming the standard ‘norm’ in project delivery and procurement, and the true benefits of such collaboration will not be realised for some time, nevertheless this is an exciting time for the construction industry, and a period of great change due to digital innovations such as BIM, IoT, Digital Smart Cities, Industry 4.0 and other technological initiatives, and perhaps collaborative project strategies such as IPD is the next logical step?

Page 55 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

4.6 Summary of Key Findings The findings from the case studies, along with the interviews indicates the lack of collaboration and siloed approach that still persists within UK construction. This may be due to elements such as lack of trust and team integration. Hence, greater co-operation which is to be found at the core of IPD is now leading many industry professionals to believe that a better way of working will result. By bringing together key project stakeholders, collaboration is hugely increased from the start which results in the reduction of waste which currently plagues the construction industry. This, along with the shared risk/reward system within an IPD approach encourages a collective ‘togetherness’ with a focus on what is best for the client.

The participant interviews cited that technology will inform (and play) an important role, like BIM previously in the successful implementation of IPD in the UK. This process has already started by the majority of private organisations using advanced digital tools to deliver projects and exchange information, although many common barriers to this adoption are highlighted by the interview participants and case studies, such as: 

Upskilling to BIM software’s/high learning curve



Software interoperability between project design teams



Lack of formal/legal construction documentation for BIM and IPD



High cost (and time) of implementing IPD processes and procedures



Cultural change/reluctance of project team to ‘collaborate’ with one another.

4.7 Summary of Chapter

From the data collection in Chapter 4, we can see that the industry perception of IPD is still very low due to the lack of case studies and exemplar projects in the UK. As an example, BIM mandates by the US and UK governments have helped achieve a high level of understanding and endorsement by the construction industry (McGraw Hill, 2014). The US case studies have shown that there are significant benefits to be had from working in an IPD environment. US based IPD ‘pioneers’ are finding they can increase profits, whilst building long-term relationships with their project teams by working in a highly collaborative relationship.

The participant interviews cited many barriers to BIM adoption and these will be similar for an IPD approach, as IPD is still relatively new in the US with little (or limited) exposure in the UK. Hence, it could be seen that training and education of IPD ‘champions’ would need to be made a priority for the adoption to happen.

Page 56 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

4.8 Recommendations for Practical Implementation Developing trust is a real and continuous challenge. It is easy to become protective of ‘your’ interest and forget that in and IPD approach, the team wins or loses together. Using ‘trust’ based activities and tools can help IPD adoption and implementation. A summary of several key tools and techniques are listed below.

1. BIM: Digital tools, procedures and processes help foster better working relationships within teams on integrated and collaborative projects.

2. COLLABORATION: Collaborative working practices where all design team members are engaged at an early stage in the design process, aided by BIM tools, are estimated to save at least 10% over the cost of traditional design and construction projects, Fischer et al. (2017).

3. TRUST & TRANSPARENCY: Trust facilitates information sharing and enhances productivity. Mutual respect and trust is the single most important principle of IPD (AIA, 2007).

4. MOTIVATION & INCENTIVES: Incentives such as IPD’s risk and reward compensation structure is based on the ‘collective’ efficiency of all project stakeholders and aligns everyone’s interest for the benefit of the project.

5. LEAN CONCEPTS: Lean provides project teams the means to optimise their performance, minimise waste and achieve project goals by using lean ‘tools’ such as Last Planner System (LPS) and Target Value Design (TVD). This focuses on delivering value and eliminating waste.

6. PROJECT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (CDE): A common Data Environment provides a transparent, web-based centralised database created and used by the project team for purposes of information exchanges; a prerequisite for collaboration.

Page 57 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

CHAPTER 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions

The qualitative research undertaken shows that the use of collaborative project strategies such as IPD, along with BIM, within the construction industry has been slow due to inexperience and lack of involvement. But clients are now becoming more intelligent and want more input and certainty on projects; this pushes the project team to provide the client with clear, accessible information, and the use of collaborative project strategies such as IPD, BIM and lean is enabling this process to improve. Currently BIM is being used as a tool to not only design, simulate and maintain assets, but also as a way to communicate design intent to project teams from the beginning. The early involvement of the project team is supported by Morton (2011), who states: “Clients, designers and contractors are increasingly seeking to integrate at an earlier stage to identify key project and client objectives, strategies and timing of information release”.

From the research, we see that an IPD approach can make projects more agile, transparent and collaborative. It also makes projects more productive operationally and their outcomes financially realistic. The use of an IPD approach, when utilising BIM is the only way for all project outcomes to be fully realised. By increasing stakeholder engagement early, this increases collaboration and traditional team silos are broken down encouraging all parties to work together for the benefit of the project. This collaboration is enhanced with IPD enablers such as shared risks and rewards and co-location which forces everyone to work together instead of pursuing their individual goals.

IPD is new to many within the UK construction industry, therefore it will take some time for people to fully understand and appreciate its benefits; change management will be a key requirement for this approach to be successful. The industry is notorious for its resistance to change, but perhaps senior figures from industry will take note of the benefits that IPD has to offer, although for this to happen the industry must embrace IPD fully to improve quality, reduce waste, lower costs, increase cost certainty, guarantee project outcomes and deliver a quality product that clients expect.

The tried and tested excuse for not wanting change is that “we’ve always done it this way!” IPD can change corporate cultures, procedures and processes on projects. Changes pre-support an understanding that something needs to be changed and that you need to ‘change yourself’. If the insight is present, then changes must be made from the top down - from below there needs to be motivational support to participate. Page 58 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

5.2 Achievement of the Research Aims and Objectives

The aim of this research was to investigate IPD methodologies as key project enablers within UK construction based multi-disciplinary organisations, and each of the research objectives have been achieved by the following:

To explore the extent and usage of collaborative project strategies (IPD) within industry.

The case study/data analysis revealed the extensive use of collaborative project strategies such as IPD within the US, in contrast to the limited exposure of IPD within the UK construction industry through analysis of interviewee data.

To examine the barriers to collaborative project strategies (IPD) within industry.

The case study/data analysis revealed many barriers to collaborative project strategies (IPD) within industry. Through the use of thematic analysis and participant interviews this view was reinforced, with cultural change being the most notable obstacle to IPD adoption.

To develop an appropriate research strategy to identify key enablers for the implementation of collaborative project strategies (IPD).

The interview data revealed some IPD ‘enablers’ such as digital BIM tools, as these showed the most promise for IPD implementation. Although, it was noted that other ‘key’ IPD enablers such as shared risk & reward, and trust and transparency were not mentioned.

To explore the evolving role of the BIM Manager as the ‘catalyst’ to drive IPD within design and construction organisations.

Analysis of interview data reinforced the role of the BIM Manager as ‘IPD catalyst’, as they were in a strategic position to implement and drive IPD adoption, alongside existing BIM processes within a company. This person could be both BIM Manager and IPD ‘champion’.

Suggest key benefits (including time, cost and quality) from using IPD methodologies within the UK Architecture/Engineering/Construction (AEC) industry.

Analysis of the case studies reviewed that IPD gave benefits of time, cost and quality. The interviewees also agreed with the benefits of time and cost, although there was no mention of quality on projects, hence this is an area that would require further research.

Page 59 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

To make recommendations of key enablers that can offer ‘quick wins’ within multi-disciplinary design organisations in the UK.

Analysis of the interview data highlighted several times the perceived enablers for an IPD approach being the implementation of digital BIM tools, along with lean concepts for collaboration. But there was no mention of other key IPD enablers such as trust and transparency, and shared risk/reward as these required ‘top-down’ involvement.

It was noted that the interview data did not fully agree with the case study analysis due to the lack of UK based IPD exemplar projects to reference from, hence this is an area that would need addressing in future research.

5.3 Limitation of the Research The research carried out gives a general insight into IPD and how BIM enhances this process. The data extracted and analysed from the interviewees corresponded with the case studies and literature reviews, but this information was limited to an IPD approach on large-scale construction projects by multi-national companies. Hence no results were present from SME’s and what their perception of IPD was and whether they see it as a benefit to trial on smaller projects. Further limitations included the lack of IPD ‘exemplar’ projects available within the UK and this an area that would need addressing if IPD is to stand a chance of being used as an alternative to traditional procurement routes.

5.4 Areas for further Research Possible areas for future research include increasing the sample of interviews and experiences from across the UK, and across different sectors within the AEC community. There will also be a need for SME’s to participate in this research to obtain a more comprehensive picture of whether an IPD approach is a plausible route for small scale projects in the UK.

Knowledge of IPD can be bolstered through BIM and lean from the ‘grass-roots’ by teaching these subjects and strategies at undergraduate level across all disciplines, hence the need for courses like the MSc BIM and Integrated Design course at the University of Salford. To achieve optimal project integration, there is a real need for more research around projects focused on improving team behaviours and to think of value beyond just ‘completed under budget and ahead of schedule’.

Page 60 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Sample questions regarding IPD for future research are listed below which may help answer the question of whether there is a place for IPD or collaborative projects strategies in the UK. These questions may include: 

The proposed development of a suite of UK contracts based on an IPD approach.



A comparison of UK and US project delivery approaches when using IPD, BIM and lean.



How the design process needs to change at grass-roots level to realise the benefits of IPD.

A final, but optimistic quote from Fischer et al. (2017) on the growth of IPD:

“The industry has a long way to go to perfect the ‘integrated project organisation’. We have seen significant interest and growth in new delivery methods and tools. Interest in IPD is growing”.

Page 61 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

References and Bibliography

Page 62 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Page 63 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Page 64 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Page 65 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Page 66 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Appendix A – Confirmation/Copy of Ethical Approval

Page 67 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Appendix B – Example Interview Transcript Name: Steve Clayton

Email: steve.clayton@bouygues-es.co.uk

Company: Bouygues Energies & Services UK

Experience: 10+ years

Position: Assistant BIM Manager

1. What are your responsibilities within your organisation in relation to collaborative project strategies? 

I play a supporting role guided by our BIM manager my responsibilities include:



Practical development of software and templates



Setting up project



Resolving project and software issues



Establishing federated models and clash resolution meetings

2. How many years’ experience do you, or your organisation, have with using collaborative project strategies? 

Personally I have 10 years’ experience. The company has been working in a 3D collaborative environment for 3 to 4 years.

3. What motivated your organisation to implement collaborative project strategies? a. If answered yes – what changes were required for the adoption? b. If answered no – why did your organisation choose not to

The company was motivated by the design/construction industry moving toward collaborative working with the main driver being the government mandate of BIM level 2 on all publically procured projects.

The changes require were mainly focused on designing in object based 3D software (Revit) combined with collaboration tools such as Navisworks.

Changes in working practice required development of templates and software and training to support users

In addition the use of a CDE and development of a set of documentation to support collaboration has been required.

Page 68 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

4. What advantages/barriers arise from the use of collaborative project strategies? 

Advantages so far have been mainly related to coordination, clash detection and visuals.



The use of a visual model has proved advantageous in that more people can view the design and this in turn has created an additional avenue for comment on design/review of projects.



Barriers could be attributed to additional drafting time, the need to change working practices and the difficulty in challenging the established cultural norm.

5. Do you think behaviours, technology and processes affect collaborative project strategies? 

Most certainly, although this will depend on individual team members and a push from the Architect or project lead to utilise Revit/BIM for maximum efficiency on projects and information sharing.

6. How does your organisation measure the results of collaborative project strategies? 

Beyond identifying what processes have been used on a project I am not sure it does

7. How has the use of collaborative project strategies encouraged success in your organisation? 

Beyond sharing 3D models and establishing clash detection I am not sure it has.

8. Does BIM and IPD enhance collaboration throughout the construction industry, and how do you create high performance teams within an IPD project? 

Yes I believe BIM and IPD has and will continue to drive collaboration within the construction.



Creating IPD project teams could be done by either employing BIM savvy individuals (teams) or developing existing employee’s skills.

9. Do you believe that BIM and IPD will be ‘game changers’ in the future, with regards to the digital transformation of the construction industry? 

Yes, but I believe it may take many years for this to transpire as BIM is only recently being recognised as ‘the’ way forward with many companies having to catch-up.

10. What is the potential, and way forward for collaborative project strategies such as BIM/IPD? 

BIM provides the opportunity to collaborate more closely on all digital matters during the design and construction phases of a project. In addition development of digital twins and the internet of things means that BIM provides a stepping stone to running buildings and cites with a more synergetic outlook.

Page 69 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Appendix C – Tabulated Interview Questions and Responses

This section of the research presents data collected from questionnaires during interviews with key professionals working within the construction industry. The purpose of the questionnaires and interviews are to measure an individual’s perception of how collaborative project strategies, such as IPD and BIM impacts traditional methods of construction procurement.

No.

Research Question and Area of Discussion

Participant 1: Assistant BIM Manager

Participant 2: Senior Project Architect

Participant 3: Arch Designer & BIM Lead

Participant 4: BIM Manager & Implementation

What are your responsibilities within your organisation with relation to collaborative project strategies?

**I play a supporting role guided by our BIM manager my responsibilities include: **Practical development of software and templates. **Resolving project and software issues. **Establishing federated models and clash resolution meetings. **Writing processes and procedures for BSI BIM Level 2 Certification. **Establishing BIM & 3d models on site or coordination.

**Currently working as Senior Project Architect on mainly education projects, within an integrated multi-disciplinary team. **My roles involves the full RIBA Stages (1-5), from design & construction, to running projects on site and also as client liaison with the educational establishments. **There are no specific ‘collaborative project strategies in place’ such as BIM as we use traditional lump sum contracts.

** I have experience of working in health, educational and residential projects in India & the Middle East, along with BIM Level 2 projects. **As BIM Lead, I check company output on projects for LOD specifications, digital fabrication, 3D printing, BIM project setup & formulating the BIM Execution Plans. **In-charge of implementing BIM, supporting and sharing knowledge with professionals on Revit and VR tools.

**Started my career as a BIM Design Engineer worked in variety of high-rise building and infrastructure projects. **Currently working with main contractor side for managing BIM information from subcontractor/suppliers **In Qatar for £100 million budget Qatar university project and gained an insight of contractual structure and BIM management procedures. **I believe in BIMs potential to radically transform the AEC industry by improving efficiency, accuracy and collaboration.

How many years’ experience do you, or your organisation, have with using collaborative project strategies?

**Personally I have 10 years’ experience. **The company has been working in a 3D collaborative environment for 3 to 4 years.

**Circa 20 years’ experience working for local authorities around the North West of England. **BIM has not been implemented in any of the organisations.

**5 years with, a design consultancy made up of designers and engineers. **We have been using Revit on all our projects for past 3-4 years.

**In total I have several years’ experience using BIM/Revit in India & UK **We are using Revit, 4D and VR across projects for the past 2 years for a Tier 1 contractor in London.

What motivated your organisation to implement collaborative project strategies?

**The company was motivated by the design & construction industry moving toward collaborative working with the main driver being the BIM level 2 mandate by the government. **The changes require were focused

**We use traditional procurement methods for construction on all projects and do not have in-house Revit or BIM capability. **Revit training has been discussed with senior management but has yet to be implemented.

**For BIM/Revit this had been driven my client/industry demand, and to position the company at the highest level in terms of digital tools used. **For IPD there is still a lack of knowledge and understanding within

**Initially due to the UK government mandate for BIM L2. But now we have seen financial incentives gained with using BIM tools such as Revit and VR on projects. **The BIM company implementation happened quickly within 2 years as the

-If answered yes – what changes were required for the adoption?

Page 70 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

-If answered no – why did your organisation choose not to?

on designing in 3D software (Revit) combined with collaboration tools such as Navisworks. **Use of a CDE to for project and site-wide collaboration.

**I believe BIM can deliver efficienes in design, delivery, and better project cost certainty.

the AEC industry and this will take time to come through onto projects.

team were responsive and keen to take on new digital tools and techniques for delivering projects and for giving the company a competitive edge.

What advantages/barriers arise from the use of collaborative project strategies?

**Advantages so far have been mainly related to coordination, clash detection/visuals. **The use of a visual model has proved advantageous in that more people can view the design and this in turn has created an additional avenue for comment on the design/review of projects. **Barriers could be attributed to additional drafting time, the need to change working practices and the difficulty in challenging the established culture.

**I see the cost efficiencies as the major ‘pull’ towards using Revit/BIM on projects, less so the collaborative side. **BIM/Revit has yet to be implemented within the office. **This will be a major cultural change for many of the staff within the local authority as most have been working in the same ways for many years. **I can see the benefits of using BIM on projects, although I’m uncertain to the time required for these benefits to be realised on projects.

**Technology such as Revit/VR has been exciting to implement and has been positively received by all staff. **The efficiencies are the main advantages such as cost certainty, and projects being delivered on time. **Barriers include interoperability of software from subcontractors. **Lack of knowledge and training around BIM and IPD in general across certain offices.

**There are many advantages of using IPD on projects but a lack of knowledge within the industry is preventing this to happen. **We already have a CDE in place for sharing project information across all teams and work in a collaborative BIM environment using Revit and 4d. **BIM has allowed us to do 3d clash-checking and coordination much quicker with all teams, with less mistakes and rework/fabrication. **The cost savings varies project to project due to timeframes and the BIM maturity of sub-contractors.

Do you think behaviours, technology and processes affect collaborative project strategies?

**Most certainly, although this will depend on individual team members and a push from the Architect or project lead to utilise Revit/BIM for maximum efficiency on projects and information sharing.

**Definitely, the resistance to change from adversarial relationships that the construction industry is used to, to the collaborative relationships that encourage sharing. **Perhaps Revit will allow for better processes to be established with regards design and quantity take-offs.

**BIM is just the beginning with the technology and processes being implemented. **This has been a complete cultural change for many people, but the final outcome with regards project delivery, information exchanges has been invaluable.

**As a contractor, we have experienced problems associated with digital interoperability between suppliers, but these were eventually overcome and best practices put in place for future projects. **This process has helped develop better collaboration on future projects with many benefits, eg. Cost/time.

How does your organisation measure the results of collaborative project strategies?

**Beyond identifying what processes have been used on a project I am not sure it does.

**There is no method to measure the results other than making sure that the project is delivered on time and to the budget.

**KPIs are used to evaluate BIM efficiency on projects **With lessons learned and project/ team reviews at construction handover stage.

**Efficiency savings achieved from design and QS services from less time spent on design & rework. **Efficiencies achieved for clients such as cost, programme and quality.

How has the use of collaborative project strategies encouraged success

**Beyond sharing 3D models and establishing clash

**There are no collaborative strategies as such as Revit/CDE in place.

**BIM/Revit/VR has encouraged collaboration on all projects.

**We have found that putting the best people together on projects who collaborate well

Page 71 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

in your organisation?

detection I am not sure it has. **Cultural change is a major factor as some people are set in their ways and use 3d tools to produce 2d information.

**we are currently reviewing BIM/Revit training for all staff, but there is no budget approved as of yet.

**Next step would be to consider IPD as appropriate for construction delivery

achieves the best outcome on projects. **It takes time for the ‘ideal’ team to be established and for trust to be developed.

Does BIM and IPD enhance collaboration throughout the construction industry, and how do you create high performance teams within an IPD project?

**Yes I believe BIM and IPD has and will continue to drive collaboration within the construction industry. Creating IPD project teams could be done by either employing BIM savvy individuals (teams) or developing existing employee’s skills.

**Possibly, but we have yet to implement both. **I see the benefits in BIM and IPD collaboration, but this will require a major cultural shift for many staff. **Training and upskilling of staff in BIM will first need implementing.

High performance team are created by identifying people and supporting them throughout the project. **Running regular workshops on bestpractices, knowledge sharing, and continuously upskilling of staff in skills they require.

**BIM has enabled collaboration with using Revit/4d digital tools and co-location has been very beneficial on a recent project. **There’s also better collaboration when we as the contractor come on board a project at an earlier stage before the design/details have been finalised.

Do you believe that BIM and IPD will be ‘game changers’ in the future, with regards to the digital transformation of the construction industry?

**Yes, but I believe it may take many years for this to transpire as BIM is only recently being recognised as ‘the’ way forward with many companies having to catch-up.

**Yes, definitely, but this will need to be pushed down from top management for it to eventually happen in local authority. Otherwise we will be left further behind.

**BIM is already a game changer for us as it keeps us ahead of the competition. **IPD could also become important when people are aware of its benefits on projects.

**BIM tools such as Revit, 4d and VR has helped minimise waste and achieve better coordination. **We have also had a reduction in RFIs from teams that have been co-located on projects.

What is the potential, and way forward for collaborative project strategies (such as BIM and IPD) in the UK?

**BIM provides the opportunity to collaborate more closely on all digital matters during the design and construction phases of a project. In addition development of digital twins and the internet of things means that BIM provides a stepping stone to running buildings and cites with a more synergetic outlook.

**BIM allows better project outcomes to be achieved, waste is minimised and cost certainty is achieved. But BIM is only the beginning. **As mentioned earlier, training and upskilling is needed if BIM and IPD is to be the way forward in construction.

**Yes, with more case studies, along with IPD/BIM specific contracts .This will allow teams to come together earlier in the design process.

**New contracts are required that outline how BIM and IPD is to be used on projects. **It will require all project team members to re-think and re-learn a new approach to construction. **Breaking away from the traditional cultural ‘ways of working’ will be difficult and the first major hurdle to overcome on projects.

Participant 1: Assistant BIM Manager (SC)

Participant 2: Senior Project Architect (NS)

Participant 3: Arch Designer & BIM Lead (AN)

Participant 4: BIM Manager & Implementer (AR)

No.

Question and Area of Discussion

Table Ref: Summary of Interview responses

Page 72 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Appendix D – Organisation Agreement Form

Page 73 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Appendix E – Participant Consent Form

Page 74 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Appendix F – Participant Information Sheet (3 pages)

Page 75 of 79

MSc Dissertation – The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Page 76 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Page 77 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail

Implementing IPD adoption

Fig. 15: Image from BIM Presentation. Ben Wallbank (2015), University of Salford.

Page 78 of 79

MSc Dissertation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The University of Salford

Iftikhar Ismail