Understanding the Disruptiveness of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in the AEC Industry
Abstract
1. Introduction
- How is disruptive innovation typically characterized in the AEC industry and other sectors?
- How can a structured framework be developed to assess the disruptiveness of AEC innovations using the existing body of knowledge?
- How can this framework be applied to a specific AEC innovation, such as IPD, to assess its disruptiveness?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Disruptive Innovation Theory
- Disruption is a relative phenomenon.
- Disruptive innovation does not always replace the traditional business.
- Disruptive innovation is not equal to destructive innovation.
2.2. Disruptive Innovation in AEC
2.3. Key Takeaways from the Literature
3. Research Approach
3.1. Methodology Layer 1: Development of the Framework for Assessing Disruptiveness
3.1.1. Literature Review and Identification of the Research Gap
3.1.2. Framework Development
- Lenses Dimension: Business Model Lens, Process Lens, and Expected Outcome Lens, based on the foundational work of [9,38,50,56]. This dimension is more extensively discussed in Section 4.1.
- Industry Levels Dimension: Organizational Level, Project Level, and Practitioner Level, as similarly adopted in works of [50,57,58,59]. This dimension is more extensively discussed in Section 4.2.
- Stakeholder Sectors Dimension: Client Sector, Consultant Sector, and Contractor Sector, as suggested in [61,62,63,68]. This dimension is more extensively discussed in Section 4.3.
3.1.3. Exemplary Validation
3.2. Methodology Layer 2: Exemplary Validation Through Selective Operationalization
3.2.1. Selection of a Specific AEC Innovation
3.2.2. Data Collection on Selected Innovation
3.2.3. Framework Application and Disruptiveness Analysis
3.2.4. Qualitative Validation Through Expert Interviews
4. A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Assessing the Disruptiveness of AEC Innovations
- Analysis “lenses,” through which the disruptiveness should be assessed
- Industry “levels,” on which this assessment should take place
- Industry “stakeholder sectors” that help clarify the contextual nature of activities and engagements related to each major discipline
4.1. Dimension 1: Analysis Lenses for Assessing Disruption
- “Business Model Lens”: How does the investigated innovation disrupt the current business model in place for different industry stakeholder sectors at various industry levels? This lens focuses on understanding the operational conditions, including fiscal and legal, related to different stakeholder sectors and at each level of the AEC industry.
- “Process Lens”: How does the investigated innovation disrupt the current practices and workflow conducted in different industry stakeholder sectors at various industry levels? Generally speaking, this lens encompasses all activities and exchanges occurring within different stakeholder sectors and at each industry level.
- “Expected Outcome Lens”: How does the investigated innovation disrupt the expected outcome from different industry stakeholder sectors at various industry levels? This lens aims to capture the goals, objectives, and effects pursued by each stakeholder sector at every industry level when adopting a business model and undergoing respective processes.
4.2. Dimension 2: Industry Levels for Assessing Disruption
- Organizations require practitioners and projects to function.
- Projects need the involvement of various organizations and their practitioners for execution.
- Practitioners need to be part of an organization to participate in a project.
4.3. Dimension 3: Industry Stakeholder Sectors for Assessing Disruption
5. Exemplary Validation Through Selective Operationalization of the Framework for Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
5.1. Disruption of “Practitioners” by Adopting IPD Through Different Lenses
5.1.1. Business Model Lens
“So, my question is in the real innovation of IPD, if actually it is, […] the people who innovate are the people in the PITs [Project Implementation Teams]. What is their incentive […] to be innovative [and] to come up with new ideas? […] There is no bonus for people, it’s just a bonus for companies [and] most people [on the project] are not shareholders of that company”.—Lead Architect at the 1st & Clark Project
5.1.2. Process Lens
“It was all the same amount of work for everyone. We just did it that much faster [in IPD]”.—Client Representative at the 1st & Clark Project
5.1.3. Expected Outcome Lens
Q: How were the training sessions?
A: “I loved it. So, what was interesting there, it’s just a lot of soft skills. It’s just more like the excitement really got built up with that. Lots of talk about collaboration, and, you know, working together and some stories shared of previous successes, and lots of excitement. I thought, ’Okay, well, I know what […] we’re going to learn.’ And yet, I still learned a ton […and] there was lots of opportunity for me to learn. […] I got caught off guard and learned a whole bunch more. […] So much so that on the second day, I’d actually invited some more of my junior team that we’re actually going to be part of this project […at] our own cost to have them share the experience. [and] They loved it; they came out, they were all smiles, and they all [thought] they’ve learned that there’s a better way”.—Electrical Contractor at the 1st & Clark Project
“I know that we always say it [IPD] is culture. It [IPD] is about culture, not contracts, but [the IPD] contract provides a really strong foundation, able to do the work”.—IPD Advisor at the 1st & Clark Project
Q: “How did IPD impact the shift of mindset?”
A: “Because you have in traditional projects, everyone is doing their own [work] based on their experience on similar projects, […] and you don’t typically communicate with [others]. There’s no contractor in the project, because contractors come on board, once the project is tendered. That’s [in] the traditional projects, right? But [in] IPD, definitely, you need to have a different mindset, because especially consultants and contractors working together. Sometimes [in traditional projects] consultants like to dictate that, hey, you gotta do what I’m asking you to do. But for IPD, I think you need to have that little bit be open minded, that contractor can also contribute to design. And that’s what we did with this project”.—Electrical Consultant at the 1st & Clark Project
5.2. Disruption of “Projects” by Adopting IPD Through Different Lenses
5.2.1. Business Model Lens
“I think [in] the shared risk and reward model, the fact that I only win if you win, and if you lose I lose is another significant disruption because in no other [project delivery] model, does my income depend on your success”.—IPD Expert from IPDA
“[In preparing the IPD contract] we met the requirements of the law, but that took a lot of talking and finagling with the various lawyers. […] It took about a year once the contract was, like, in shape!”—Client Representative at the Kamloops Project
“[The fact that some] owners just don’t believe that the financial model of IPD [would work] is for real. […] While the rate of flow of cash into the IPD project might move faster […] than it might in a traditionally delivered project, I’m going to reach certainty, three times faster. […] So I actually spend way less up front to get to certainty in IPD than I do in the traditional world.”—IPD Expert from IPDA
“In IPD, are we realizing […] potential risks earlier and then [are] better able to manage those risks. Consequently, that also requires additional funding and budgeting upfront to be able to go through that process. [And] this will change my whole budgeting structure and cost flow curves.”—A Public Owner (Owners’ Forum in Toronto)
5.2.2. Process Lens
“So, we’ve implemented Lean, and IPD […is] the extension [of it,] because obviously, it’s the Lean way of running projects. However, for us, we need to be more competitive versus traditional construction. So, for us, it’s really about reducing the cost using Lean so we can be competitive”.—A Public Owner (Owners’ Forum in Calgary)
“I think it also allows us to have innovative construction methods. […IPD] opens up the door to be able to not only having different types of construction methods but more efficient construction methods”.—A Public Owner (Owners’ Forum in Vancouver)
“Lean Construction is certainly more popular but lean and design on the, especially on the engineering side, there’s a lot of resistance”.—IPD Expert from IPDA
5.2.3. Expected Outcome Lens
“Now ([in the IPD project]), suddenly, they ([the clients]) are getting everything they wanted, and these extra things. So, we over-delivered honestly, and we have never been able to do that. So that is awesome”.—Capital Projects Manager at the City of Kamloops
“I just think the whole [Target Value Design] approach is how can we be more efficient, both in time, money, materials, and effort”.—Architect at the Barrie and Simcoe Project
“But the thing is, what kept everyone motivated was involvement from the owners. Because when you see that the owners are in the meetings, they are super excited to keep the project alive. And they’re reviewing costs, they’re giving input […] so that keeps everyone motivated that okay, owner wants to keep the project”.—Electrical Consultant at the 1st & Clark Project
Q: “If you consider other values ([other than financial values]), that hostile behavior actually doesn’t provide you those values, right?”
A: “That’s correct. You know, you could look at safety, you could look at wellness, you could look at equality and diversity, you can look at sustainability, and energy use, and the list can go on and on and on”.—IPD Expert from IPDA
5.3. Disruption of “Organizations” by Adopting IPD Through Different Lenses
5.3.1. Business Model Lens
Q: “Does the prior experience with IPD matter?”
A: “No, experience with collaborative type delivery [matters]. But I don’t think you need direct IPD experience. I think you can work your way through it as long as you’re an organization that believes in collaboration.”—IPD Expert from IPDA
“[In larger projects,] there’s at least enough there that you can sink your teeth into, and you can find some collaborative savings and improvements and workflows that provide value to the owner over time. When it gets smaller than that. It’s a real challenge.”—Mechanical Contractor at the TCSH projects
“Your involvement as an owner is probably tenfold to what you would typically manage in contracts elsewhere. And it is not a negative piece, you have to understand your resourcing.”—Supervisor for Capital Facilities at the City of Barrie
“From a business standpoint, IPD has been disruptive to us [(as an organization)] and we’ve realized that this is a completely different business model for us. We have to have staff that are dedicated to IPD projects and staff that aren’t. […] It [(IPD)] takes so much more of our staff’s time.”—IPD Expert from IPDA
5.3.2. Process Lens
5.3.3. Expected Outcome Lens
“For us, the takeaway for this [IPD] project really was to be part of that, to have that experience to have that in our resume, to be able to reference that and showcase that and learn from it for future projects. I think the impact [for us] is significant.”—Electrical Contractor at the 1st & Clark Project
“So, we [as an organization] need to make sure that our company and everyone on the project, we’re making profit, because we’re putting all this effort, all this energy, technical expertise, we involve a lot of technical people on the project, we want to make sure that eventually when the project is done, client is happy number one, so we get more business from the client.”—Electrical Consultant at the 1st & Clark Project
6. Conclusions and Future Works
- Dimension 1: Analysis Lenses—comprising Business Model, Process, and Expected Outcome
- Dimension 2: Industry Levels—encompassing Practitioners, Projects, and Organizations
- Dimension 3: Stakeholder Sectors—covering Clients, Consultants, and Contractors
6.1. Key Research Limitations
6.2. Practical Recommendations for AEC Industry
- Develop a solid understanding of the three introduced lenses as early as possible by completing foundational training, attending expert workshops, and reviewing technical literature.
- Identify what will change for you with respect to the three lenses, then decide whether you need to renegotiate your engagement conditions, obtain additional training to transition smoothly, and adjust your long-term goals within the industry.
- Recognizing that fear of the unknown and resistance to change are common, reach out to peers and organizations that have already completed IPD projects to learn from their experience, and consult case studies to build a clearer picture of the outcomes you can expect.
6.3. Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Statistics Canada. Labour Productivity and Related Measures by Business Sector Industry and by Non-Commercial Activity Consistent with the Industry Accounts, 2021. Available online: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610048001 (accessed on 10 March 2022).
- Aljohani, A.; Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.; Moore, D. Construction Projects Cost Overrun: What Does the Literature Tell Us? Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2017, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subramani, T.; Lishitha, P.; Kavitha, M. Time Overrun and Cost Effectiveness in the Construction Industry. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2014, 4, 111–116. [Google Scholar]
- Tejale, D.S.; Khandekar, S.; Patil, J. Analysis of Construction Project Cost Overrun by Statistical Method. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Manag. Stud. 2015, 3, 349–355. [Google Scholar]
- Agarwal, R.; Chandrasekaran, S.; Sridhar, M. Imagining Construction’s Digital Future; Technical Report 6; McKinsey & Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- UNEP. Building Sector Emissions Hit Record High, But Low-Carbon Pandemic Recovery Can Help Transform Sector—UN Report. Section: News and Stories. Available online: http://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/building-sector-emissions-hit-record-high-low-carbon-pandemic (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- EPA. Construction and Demolition Debris: Material-Specific Data. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/construction-and-demolition-debris-material (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- Lynn, T.; Rosati, P.; Kassem, M.; Krinidis, S.; Kennedy, J. (Eds.) Disrupting Buildings: Digitalisation and the Transformation of Deep Renovation; Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allison, M.; Cheng, R. IPD: Performance, Expectations, and Future Use. A Report On Outcomes of a University of Minnesota Survey; Technical Report 1; Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): Lexington, KY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, R.; Johnson, A. Motivation and Means: How and Why IPD and Lean Lead to Success; Technical Report; Lean Construction Institute and Integrated Project Delivery Alliance: Arlington, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, M.; Khanzode, A.; Reed, D.P.; Ashcraft, K. Integrating Project Delivery; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Abdirad, H.; Dossick, C.S. Restructuration of architectural practice in integrated project delivery (IPD): Two case studies. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chudasma, D.; Lam, A.L.; Zadeh, P.A.; Staub-French, S.; Goodland, H. Strategies for Collaborative Construction: Integrated Project Delivery Case Studies; Technical Report 1; BC Housing: Burnaby, BC, Canada, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bhonde, D.; Zadeh, P.A.; Staub-French, S.; Goodland, H. Owners’ Perceived Barriers to Adoption of IPD in Canada; Technical Report 1; Integrated Project Delivery Alliance (IPDA): Toronto, ON, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Arar, A.; Bhonde, D.; Poirier, E.; Zadeh, P.A.; Staub-French, S. Investigating Factors Leading to IPD Project Success in Canada; Technical Report 1; Integrated Project Delivery Alliance (IPDA): Toronto, ON, Canada, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Mei, T.; Guo, Z.; Li, P.; Fang, K.; Zhong, S. Applicability of Integrated Project Delivery Principles Based on a Measurement Model in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinmann, M.; Baier, C.; Miguel, A.S.; Haghsheno, S. Structuring Approach and Current Status of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in Germany. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 32), Auckland, New Zealand, 1–7 July 2024; International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC): Kyoto, Japan, 2024; pp. 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil Sebastián, J.J.; Soler Severino, M.J. Real Estate Owners’ Early Thoughts on Lean IPD Implementation in Spain. Buildings 2025, 15, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanzode, A.; Fischer, M.; Reed, D. Benefits and lessons learned of implementing building virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies for coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems on a large healthcare project. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. (ITcon) 2008, 13, 324–342. [Google Scholar]
- Homayouni, H.; Neff, G.; Dossick, C.S. Theoretical Categories of Successful Collaboration and BIM Implementation within the AEC Industry. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2010. American Society of Civil Engineers, Banff, AB, Canada, 8–10 May 2010; pp. 778–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhonde, D.; Zadeh, P.A.; Staub-French, S. Characterizing the effects of cloud-based BIM collaboration tools on design coordination processes. J. Manag. Eng. (ASCE) 2024. Manuscript submitted. [Google Scholar]
- Irene, R.; Zadeh, P.A.; Staub-French, S. Understanding Design Issue Management and Coordination Processes When Using Cloud-Based BIM; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadeh, P.A.; Wang, G.; Cavka, H.B.; Staub-French, S.; Pottinger, R. Information Quality Assessment for Facility Management. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2017, 33, 181–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Succar, B.; Poirier, E. Lifecycle information transformation and exchange for delivering and managing digital and physical assets. Autom. Constr. 2020, 112, 103090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsay, G.S.; Staub-French, S.; Poirier, E. BIM for Facilities Management: An Investigation into the Asset Information Delivery Process and the Associated Challenges. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staub-French, S.; Poirier, E.A.; Calderon, F.; Chikhi, I.; Zadeh, P.; Chudasma, D.; Huang, S. Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) for Mass Timber Construction; Technical Report; BC Forestry Innovation Investment (FII): Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, X.; Liu, H.; Chen, Y.; Al-Hussein, M. Building information modelling for off-site construction: Review and future directions. Autom. Constr. 2019, 101, 72–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suliman, A.; Rankin, J. Maturity-based mapping of technology and method innovation in off-site construction: Conceptual frameworks. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. (ITcon) 2021, 26, 381–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marco, A.D.; Karzouna, A. Assessing the Benefits of the Integrated Project Delivery Method: A Survey of Expert Opinions. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 138, 823–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viana, M.L.; Hadikusumo, B.H.; Mohammad, M.Z.; Kahvandi, Z. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): An Updated Review and Analysis Case Study. J. Eng. Proj. Prod. Manag. 2020, 10, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, C.M.; Raynor, M.E. eBook Subscription Harvard Business Publishing Collection—Worldwide. The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth; Harvard Business Review Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Christensen, C.M. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail; Harvard Business Review Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, D.; Hang, C.C. A Reflective Review of Disruptive Innovation Theory. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 435–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Utterback, J.M.; Acee, H.J. Disruptive Technologies: An Expanded View. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2005, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindarajan, V.; Kopalle, P.K. The Usefulness of Measuring Disruptiveness of Innovations Ex Post in Making Ex Ante Predictions. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2006, 23, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagy, D.; Schuessler, J.; Dubinsky, A. Defining and identifying disruptive innovations. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 57, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuokkanen, A.; Uusitalo, V.; Koistinen, K. A framework of disruptive sustainable innovation: An example of the Finnish food system. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 31, 749–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Si, S.; Chen, H. A literature review of disruptive innovation: What it is, how it works and where it goes. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2020, 56, 101568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linton, J.D. De-babelizing the language of innovation. Technovation 2009, 29, 729–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A. Technology Readiness Index (Tri): A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies. J. Serv. Res. 2000, 2, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Technology acceptance model: TAM. In Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption; Al-Suqri, M.N., Al-Aufi, A.S., Eds.; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 1989; Volume 205, p. 5. [Google Scholar]
- Blut, M.; Wang, C. Technology readiness: A meta-analysis of conceptualizations of the construct and its impact on technology usage. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2019, 48, 649–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballat, G.E. Understanding the Adoption of Additive Manufacturing in Construction: A Sociological Perspective through a Revised TAM Model. Adv. Appl. Sociol. 2024, 14, 517–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preißner, S.; Raasch, C.; Schweisfurth, T. When necessity is the mother of disruption: Users versus producers as sources of disruptive innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2024, 41, 62–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lile, S.; Ansari, S.S.; Urmetzer, F. Rethinking disruptive innovation: Unravelling theoretical controversies and charting new research frontiers. Innovation 2024, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toole, T.M. Uncertainty and Home Builders’ Adoption of Technological Innovations. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1998, 124, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manseau, A.; Seaden, G. Innovation in Construction: An International Review of Public Policies; Spon Press: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Froese, T.M.; Rankin, J.H. Strategic roadmaps for construction innovation: Assessing the state of research. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. (ITcon) 2014, 14, 400–411. [Google Scholar]
- Marocco, M.; Garofolo, I. Integrating disruptive technologies with facilities management: A literature review and future research directions. Autom. Constr. 2021, 131, 103917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poirier, E.; Staub-French, S.; Forgues, D. Embedded contexts of innovation: BIM adoption and implementation for a specialty contracting SME. Constr. Innov. 2015, 15, 42–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lekan, A.; Aigbavboa, C.; Babatunde, O.; Olabosipo, F.; Christiana, A. Disruptive technological innovations in construction field and fourth industrial revolution intervention in the achievement of the sustainable development goal 9. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022, 22, 2647–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernstsen, S.K.; Maier, A.; Larsen, L.R.; Thuesen, C. Is construction ripe for disruption? In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference ARCOM 2018, Belfast, UK, 3–5 September 2018; pp. 22–31. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, P.; Gajendran, T.; Vaughan, J.; Owi, T. Assessing construction innovation: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Constr. Econ. Build. 2016, 16, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernstsen, S.N.; Whyte, J.; Thuesen, C.; Maier, A. How Innovation Champions Frame the Future: Three Visions for Digital Transformation of Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 05020022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzoor, B.; Othman, I.; Pomares, J.C. Digital Technologies in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Industry—A Bibliometric—Qualitative Literature Review of Research Activities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogunbiyi, O.; Goulding, J.S.; Oladapo, A. An empirical study of the impact of lean construction techniques on sustainable construction in the UK. Constr. Innov. 2014, 14, 88–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peansupap, V.; Walker, D.H. Information communication technology (ICT) implementation constraints: A construction industry perspective. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2006, 13, 364–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, K.; Boyle, C.; Henning, T.F.P. Beyond the Certification Badge—How Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tools Impact on Individual, Organizational, and Industry Practice. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, W.; Pan, M. Rethinking lean synergistically in practice for construction industry improvements. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. (ECAM) 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allison, M.; Ashcraft, H.; Cheng, R.; Klawens, S.; Pease, J. Integrated Project Delivery: An Action Guide for Leaders; Integrated Project Delivery Alliance (IPDA), Center for Innovation in the Design and Construction Industry (CIDCI), Charles Pankow Foundation: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ørstavik, F.; Dainty, A.; Abbott, C. (Eds.) Construction Innovation; Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bossink, B.A.G. Managing Drivers of Innovation in Construction Networks. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, A.M.M.; Chan, I.Y.S. Critical Role of the Learning Transfer Climate in Fostering Innovation in Construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04016050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dan, Y.; Chieh, H.C. A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. In Proceedings of the PICMET’08—2008 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology, Cape Town, South Africa, 27–31 July 2008; pp. 402–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishler, E. Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role of Exemplars in Narrative Studies. Harv. Educ. Rev. 2010, 60, 415–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasool, F.; Koomsap, P.; Afsar, B.; Panezai, B.A. A framework for disruptive innovation. Foresight 2018, 20, 252–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diab, S.; Kanyaru, J.; Zantout, H. Disruptive Innovation: A Dedicated Forecasting Framework. In Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications; Series Title: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 38, pp. 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozorhon, B.; Karahan, U. Critical Success Factors of Building Information Modeling Implementation. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04016054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadeh, P.; Alsakka, F.; Bhonde, D.; Staub-French, S. PDCA for Team Performance Management in Lean-IPD. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 33), Osaka and Kyoto, Japan, 2–8 June 2025; pp. 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, W.; Parrish, K. The Need for Integrated Project Delivery in the Public Sector. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2014. American Society of Civil Engineers, Atlanta, GA, USA, 19–21 May 2014; pp. 719–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Considered Innovation Aspects | Business Model | Processes | Expected Outcome | Individual Adopter | Projects as Adopters | Organizations as Adopters |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Manseau and Seaden [47] | 🗸 | 🗸 | ||||
Froese and Rankin [48] | 🗸 | 🗸 | ||||
Ernstsen et al. [54] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | ||
Manzoor et al. [55] | 🗸 | 🗸 | ||||
Poirier et al. [50] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | |
Ogunbiyi et al. [56] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | ||
Peansupap and Walker [57] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | ||
Griffiths et al. [58] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | |||
Pan and Pan [59] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | ||
Allison et al. [60] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 |
Considered Stakeholder Sectors | Clients | Consultants | Contractors | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ørstavik et al. [61] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | – |
Bossink [62] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | Clients are mostly municipal departments. Additionally, includes the real estate agents |
Liu and Chan [63] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | Additionally, includes the suppliers |
Dan and Chieh [64] | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | Distinguishes between architects and other consultants; similarly between general contractors and subcontractors |
Dimension 1: Analysis Lenses | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biz. Model Lens | Process Lens | Outcome Lens | ||||
Dimension 2: Industry Levels | Practitioners Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors | Clients | |||
Consultants | ||||||
Contractors | ||||||
Projects Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors | Clients | Characteristics:
| |||
Consultants | ||||||
Contractors | ||||||
Organizations Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors | Clients | ||||
Consultants | ||||||
Contractors |
Project Name | Number of Research Participants | Research Duration | Data Collection Methods | Dataset Volume (Transcribed Words) | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
East 1st & Clark Project | 32 | 3 Years | Direct Observations, Interviews, Surveys, Document Analysis | ∼222,000 | An ethnographic research on a single construction project from the beginning until the end of detailed design phase |
IPD Owner Barriers | 53 | 1 Year | Focus Group Study | ∼143,500 | A diverse set of participants from public and private sector, with different levels of experience with IPD. More details can be found in [14]. |
Factors to IPD Success | 36 | 1 Year | Interviews and Surveys | ∼338,700 | A retrospective research study on three selected Canadian IPD projects with the following selection criteria: three or more signatories, were delivered by 1 January 2021 (research start), were distributed across Canada, variety of Canadian companies represented, and diversity of building typology. More details can be found in [15]. |
Dimension 1: Analysis Lenses | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biz. Model Lens | Process Lens | Outcome Lens | |||
Dimension 2: Industry Levels | Practitioners Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors (Clients, Consultants, Contractors) |
- Does the innovation require new ways and means of compensating practitioners engaged with it? - Will practitioners benefit financially from the successful implementation of the innovation? - Does the innovation require success- and performance-oriented compensation for individual practitioners, as opposed to flat hourly rates or lump-sum compensation? |
- Does it necessitate new methods for conducting daily tasks by individual practitioners? - Would the absence or failure of any key practitioner in the new process hinder successful execution? |
- Is the innovation poised to contribute to the personal growth, performance, and success of individual practitioners, thereby challenging existing value propositions? - Does the innovation foster a new personal work behavior, work culture, and mindset when adopted by individual practitioners? |
Project Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors (Clients, Consultants, Contractors) |
- Do new types of partners need to be engaged in an unprecedented way? - Is it necessary to redefine risk and profit for all project partners and process components? - Is it essential to redefine the meaning of value creation and success for each component of the project? |
- Are project partners required to collaborate in an unprecedented way? - Is it necessary to define new ways of allocating and managing different project components among various partners? |
- Is the innovation poised to reshape the meaning of performance, value and success for the projects, thereby challenging existing value propositions? - Does the innovation create a new project culture that will greatly and permanently change the setting of future projects? | |
Organization Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors (Clients, Consultants, Contractors) |
- Is it necessary to hire new external partners or create new internal divisions in an unprecedented way? - Does it require redefining value creation, risk, and profit for all projects within the organization (budgeting)? - Are there new ways of allocating and managing organizational resources required? - Does the organization need to systematically invest in training the current workforce or hire new talent? |
- Is it necessary to hire new external partners or create new internal divisions to conduct necessary process components in an unprecedented way? - Are the organization’s existing divisions required to collaborate in unprecedented ways? |
- Is it reshaping the definition of organizational performance, value, and success for the entire organization and challenging the existing value propositions? - Does it create a new organizational culture and significantly and permanently alter the organizational mindset? |
Dimension 1: Analysis Lenses | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biz. Model Lens | Process Lens | Outcome Lens | ||||
Dimension 2: Industry Levels | Practitioners Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors | Clients | Section 5.1.1 | Section 5.1.2 | Section 5.1.3 |
Consultants | ||||||
Contractors | ||||||
Projects Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors | Clients | Section 5.2.1 | Section 5.2.2 | Section 5.2.3 | |
Consultants | ||||||
Contractors | ||||||
Organizations Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors | Clients | Section 5.3.1 | Section 5.3.2 | Section 5.3.3 | |
Consultants | ||||||
Contractors |
Dimension 1: Analysis Lenses | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biz. Model Lens | Process Lens | Outcome Lens | |||
Dimension 2: Industry Levels | Practitioners Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors (Clients, Consultants, Contractors) |
- Does IPD adoption require new ways and means of compensating practitioners engaged with it? - Will practitioners benefit financially from the successful implementation of IPD? - Does IPD adoption require success- and performance-oriented compensation for individual practitioners, as opposed to flat hourly rates or lump-sum compensation? |
- Does IPD adoption necessitate new methods for conducting daily tasks by individual practitioners? - Would the absence or failure of any key practitioner in the new process hinder successful adoption of IPD? |
- Is the IPD adoption poised to contribute to the personal growth, performance, and success of individual practitioners, thereby challenging existing value propositions? - Does the IPD adoption foster a new personal work behavior, work culture, and mindset when adopted by individual practitioners? |
Dimension 1: Analysis Lenses | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biz. Model Lens | Process Lens | Outcome Lens | |||
Dimension 2: Industry Levels | Projects Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors (Clients, Consultants, Contractors) |
- Do new types of partners need to be engaged in an unprecedented way when adopting IPD? - Is it necessary to redefine risk and profit for all project partners and process components? - Is it essential to redefine the meaning of value creation and success for each component of the project ? |
- Are project partners required to collaborate in an unprecedented way when adopting IPD? - Is it necessary to define new ways of allocating and managing different project components among various partners when adopting IPD? |
- Is the IPD adoption poised to reshape the meaning of performance, value and success for the projects, thereby challenging existing value propositions? - Does the IPD adoption create a new project culture that will greatly and permanently change the setting of future projects? |
Dimension 1: Analysis Lenses | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biz. Model Lens | Process Lens | Outcome Lens | |||
Dimension 2: Industry Levels | Organizations Level | Dimension 3: Industry Sectors (Clients, Consultants, Contractors) |
- Is it necessary, when adopting IPD, to hire new external partners or create new internal divisions in an unprecedented way? - Does adopting IPD require redefining value creation, risk, and profit for all projects within the organization (budgeting)? - When adopting IPD, are new ways of allocating and managing organizational resources required? - When adopting IPD, does the organization need to systematically invest in training the current workforce or hire new talent? |
- Is it necessary, when adopting IPD, to hire new external partners or create new internal divisions to conduct necessary process components in an unprecedented way? - Are the organization’s existing divisions required to collaborate in unprecedented ways when adopting IPD? |
- Is the adoption of IPD reshaping the definition of organizational performance, value, and success for the entire organization and challenging the existing value propositions? - Does the adoption of IPD create a new organizational culture and significantly and permanently alter the organizational mindset? |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zadeh, P.A.; Thibault, J.M.; Staub-French, S.; Bhonde, D. Understanding the Disruptiveness of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in the AEC Industry. Buildings 2025, 15, 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132338
Zadeh PA, Thibault JM, Staub-French S, Bhonde D. Understanding the Disruptiveness of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in the AEC Industry. Buildings. 2025; 15(13):2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132338
Chicago/Turabian StyleZadeh, Puyan A., Juliette Mollard Thibault, Sheryl Staub-French, and Devarsh Bhonde. 2025. "Understanding the Disruptiveness of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in the AEC Industry" Buildings 15, no. 13: 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132338
APA StyleZadeh, P. A., Thibault, J. M., Staub-French, S., & Bhonde, D. (2025). Understanding the Disruptiveness of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in the AEC Industry. Buildings, 15(13), 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132338