Comments on: To “IPD” or not…that is the question (I think)

By: comperio C3 | 10 Trends in Church Facility Development and Life Cycle Management

Sat, 23 Jul 2011 11:42:07 +0000

[...] IPD thinking – IPD stands for “Integrated Project Delivery” which is the current buzz in the construction world. In essence, it is a mind set that all [...]

By: David B Dial

David B Dial — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:51:46 +0000

IPD is a great delivery method. We’ve done 3 projects using the process. But, like Tim says it still growing from infancy into a toddler. Using IPD right now is like saying Barbecue or BBQ or Bar B Que – depends upon the team’s uniqueness and experiences. That is it’s greatest strength. A team member is selected by its ability as an individual by only put on the team if they can work well with others and see the project from multiple points of view. Instead of painting a 2D image from one perspective , you get a 3D sculpture, that is fully fleshed out from multiple perspectives, giving you a more complete project.

By: TIm

TIm — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:03:59 +0000

Thanks Rex. Can you elaborate on how the shared risk/reward component works? If you are the GC and have a contract for $5 Million, with a fee of 7%, and the AVL designer has a fee of $75,000 for design services only and the A/E has a fee of $300,000 (6% of the total), how is the risk and reward divided among the team?

By the way, I totally agree that the owner MUST be part of the team and must also be part of the risk and reward equation. Excellent point.

By: rex miller

rex miller — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:57:06 +0000

We have a chapter that talks about the shared risk/reward components of a teaming approach. Shared risk/reward is proportional. If your piece of the cost and profit pie is 3% then your risk is a percentage of that 3%.

This post touches very lightly on the different elements of IPD.

The owner is a large part of its success. If their business plan is not vetted by the team, if the team is not brought in before design begins, if the owner is not part of that shared risk/reward equation then most of the benefits of IPD get diluted if not lost altogether.

By: Ron Geyer

Ron Geyer — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:29:41 +0000

Nice work, Tim. Check out Rex Miller’s (and others’) work on this topic at http://thecrerevolution.com/

By: TIm

TIm — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:36:58 +0000

Thanks for the input. I agree that if there is not a tweaking of the “risk” issues and better understanding of the responsibility and accountability that we will be re-baking existing systems and process and just calling it something new. Lord knows we don’t need that. Our clients deserve better than that.

By: tdatx

tdatx — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:16:13 +0000

All should share in the financial upside of the project, as indicated in the AIA version of the concept of IPD; however, only one party holds the risk? Risk aversion is what keeps the adversarial relationship active between owner, contractor, and consultants. This runs deep – it is even in the study material for the ARE. Until this model is shifted thoughtfully, these “silos” and barriers will continue to stand; we’ll just call it by another name.