Understanding the Disruptiveness of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in the AEC Industry

Abstract

The Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry is plagued by persistent challenges such as low productivity, cost overruns, and frequent project delays. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) has emerged as a potential solution, offering collaborative approaches to improve project outcomes. This study proposes a two-tiered methodology for evaluating the disruptiveness of innovations in the AEC industry, with a particular focus on IPD as a disruptive innovation. In the first tier, a multidimensional framework is developed to systematically assess the disruptiveness of innovations in the AEC sector. This framework, informed by a thorough literature review and disruptive innovation theory, includes dimensions such as business models, processes, and anticipated outcomes. The second tier applies the framework by analyzing the disruptiveness of IPD. The assessment draws on data from three comprehensive studies, including ethnographic research, interviews, and focus groups, which examine IPD’s impact on different stakeholder groups such as clients, consultants, and contractors. Findings reveal that IPD has the potential to significantly disrupt traditional business models, processes, and project outcomes, particularly at the project level. Notable disruptive characteristics include shifts in collaboration dynamics, redefined project financing models, and improved efficiency. However, several barriers hinder IPD adoption, including resistance to change and misalignment with conventional contractual structures. Expert interviews support these results, indicating that IPD represents a fundamental shift in the AEC industry. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by offering a structured framework for assessing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations and demonstrating its practical application. In this way, AEC organizations, projects, and practitioners can better strategize for the adoption of any new disruptive innovation and thus pursue a strategic advantage in the highly competitive industry market.

1. Introduction

The Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry needs more effective and sustainable solutions to enhance productivity and reduce environmental impact. Over the past decade, Canada’s labor productivity in the sector has remained stagnant [1]. Globally, construction projects frequently experience significant cost overruns [2], and delays are becoming more common [3,4,5]. Additionally, the AEC sector is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for approximately 40% of the world’s carbon footprint [6]. It also produces vast amounts of waste, with 600 million tons of construction and demolition debris generated in the U.S. alone in 2018 [7], a substantial increase over previous years.

Despite these ongoing challenges, AEC companies reinvest less than 1% of their annual revenues into research and development [5], limiting their ability to drive innovation. However, key advancements such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), Lean Construction (LC), Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA), computational design, and 4D and 5D simulations have been introduced through research and pilot initiatives. While these innovations show potential, they have not yet been widely adopted or established as industry standards.

Many studies highlight the advantages of these technologies, yet the industry’s uptake has been slow, largely due to the disruptive nature of these changes [8]. These innovations often demand significant alterations to established workflows, contract structures, and organizational models, making it difficult for firms to integrate them smoothly. Understanding how these innovations disrupt traditional practices, their effects, and what can accelerate their adoption is crucial, and this serves as the primary driver behind this research.

Recent research has extensively examined the adoption of innovations within the AEC sector, particularly focusing on IPD [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Studies have also explored the application of BIM in various areas, including project coordination [19,20,21,22], facility and asset management [23,24,25], and digital fabrication [26,27,28]. These investigations consistently reveal significant challenges and resistance to adopting these innovations within the industry.

Specifically, the limited adoption of IPD, despite its demonstrated potential to improve project performance and outcomes [11,29,30], emerges as a critical missed opportunity for the industry. This realization has motivated the investigation of the overarching barriers to IPD adoption. Over 20 distinct barriers were identified in a Canadian research study [14], many of which stem from the disruptions it causes to established practices. Similar studies conducted globally on IPD consistently indicate its significant disruptive potential. For example, a study on IPD implementation in Spain highlights that insufficient staff training can negatively affect project performance, underscoring IPD’s disruptive impact at both the individual and process levels, where practitioners must acquire new skills to effectively adapt to the innovation [18]. Similarly, a recent research study from Germany investigates 20 different IPD projects to examine how specific measures, such as risk-sharing and team selection, affect project outcomes, thereby contributing to broader industry disruption [17]. Additionally, another recent study from China explores how key project performance factors, along with contractual, behavioral, and collaboration-related principles, are influenced by the adoption of IPD, further illustrating its disruptive nature [16]. Therefore, understanding the disruptions triggered by IPD adoption is not only essential for addressing the practical resistance and implementation challenges but also holds theoretical significance for advancing our knowledge of how systemic innovation impacts established structures, behaviors, and relationships within the AEC industry.

This research aims to systematically examine disruptive innovation within the AEC sector. A thorough literature review has been conducted to define disruptive innovation in the AEC context and to systematically identify the disruptions associated with these innovations. The study also explores strategies for mitigating these disruptions to encourage broader adoption of IPD and similar innovations. The key research questions guiding this study are as follows:

• 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?

The research approach involves a comprehensive literature review to understand the fundamental characteristics of disruptive innovation both within and outside the AEC industry. This investigation, detailed in Section 2, covers disruption innovation theory, identifying key characteristics commonly considered by researchers studying disruptive innovations and summarizes the current body of knowledge from the AEC industry. In Section 3, a systematic approach to characterizing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations is introduced through a two-layered methodology. The first layer develops a multidimensional framework, informed by the existing body of knowledge, for assessing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations (Section 4). The second layer, detailed in Section 5, focuses on the partial validation of the developed framework, using IPD as an exemplary AEC disruptive innovation. Section 6 concludes with final remarks and provides an outlook on future work.

2. Literature Review

A systematic literature review was conducted on different sectors, including AEC, around the subject of disruptive innovation. This literature review has been used as the basis for characterizing the term disruptive innovation for the AEC industry and for identifying the different characteristics of disruptiveness for AEC innovations.

2.1. Disruptive Innovation Theory

Disruptive innovation theory is thoroughly discussed in the fundamental works of Christensen in the “disruptive technologies” domain [31,32]. This terminology was changed later to “disruptive innovation” to include business model and service innovations in addition to innovative technology products [33]. After conducting a comprehensive literature review on disruptive innovation theory, the authors in [33] provide an evolutionary timeline for this theory. This timeline primarily highlights how the topic emerged from the technology sector and emphasizes the disruptive impact of new innovations in that sector on the general market, particularly in the 90s and early 2000s. When describing disruptive innovations researchers generally divide them into two categories: (1) revolutionary and radical; (2) evolutionary, continuous, and incremental [34]. According to [35], a disruptive innovation—mostly in the context of technology products—should have the following four characteristics: (1) inferior on the attributes that mainstream customers value; (2) offer new value propositions to attract a new customer segment; (3) be sold at a lower price; (4) penetrate the market from niche to mainstream. Using these characteristics and reviewing numerous papers on disruptive innovation, the authors in [33] draw the following three conclusions:

• Disruption is a relative phenomenon.
• Disruptive innovation does not always replace the traditional business.
• Disruptive innovation is not equal to destructive innovation.

The topic of disruptive innovation has expanded beyond the technology sector in recent years. Nevertheless, the characterization of disruptive innovation remains subjective, and its exact meaning is often unclear [36,37,38]. After reviewing more than 200 papers, the authors in [38] provide an overview of the different characterizations of disruptive innovation, identifying the specific perspectives each interpretation covers. They specifically identified three emerging perspectives related to the disruption of (1) the business model, (2) evolving processes, and (3) the effect or outcome of the new product or service. Thus, they suggest that characterizing disruptive innovation requires determining the specific “perspectives” from which its disruptiveness emerges.

While the above perspectives clarify “what” is being disrupted by new innovations, it is also important to investigate “who” is being influenced in this process. As indicated by [38], a disruptive innovation can have influence at five different levels: (1) individual; (2) firm; (3) industry; (4) national or economy; (5) network. They encompass various industry sectors like suppliers, customers, investors, etc.

In this regard, ref. [39] emphasizes that, in analyzing disruptive innovations, it is critical for researchers and practitioners to identify which “perspectives” are impacted and clarify the “levels” of influence at which the analysis is conducted. Hence, two distinct dimensions for characterizing and understanding disruptive innovations emerge from the descriptions above: (1) the “perspectives” of what is being disrupted by the new innovation; (2) the “level” at which the disruption occurs. These dimensions are instrumental for describing and assessing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations as described in the next subsection.

The topic of disruptive innovation is broad, evolving, and often intersects with other research domains. Accordingly, it is important to clarify that certain related areas fall outside the scope of this study. Specifically, tools such as the Technology Readiness Index (TRI) [40] and Technology Acceptance Models (TAM) [41] are not addressed here. These models are commonly used to evaluate how individuals or organizations respond to new technologies [40,41,42,43]. While they focus on reactions to potential disruptions, particularly in the context of technology adoption, they are distinct from the present study’s emphasis on characterizing the disruptiveness of innovations themselves. Nevertheless, they may serve as valuable instruments for future research exploring adoption behaviors. Additionally, this research does not engage with broader literature on disruption enablers as discussed in [33], or investigations into the origins and sources of disruption as investigated in [44]. These areas, while relevant to the larger discourse on innovation, are beyond the current study’s defined scope.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the concept of disruptive innovation has been the subject of critique as its application expands across various sectors. A recent essay by Lile et al. summarizes many of these criticisms. Notably, the authors emphasize that the original theory places a narrow focus on technological and market-driven disruptions, and tends to concentrate on individual organizations as the primary adopters and subjects of disruption [45]. These limitations are particularly relevant in the context of the AEC industry, where many impactful innovations, such as Lean Construction (LC) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), are not strictly technological. Moreover, the effects of such innovations often extend beyond individual firms to include construction projects as entities and individual practitioners as stakeholders. This broader landscape of disruption underscores the need for tailored frameworks that reflect the unique structure and dynamics of the AEC sector.

2.2. Disruptive Innovation in AEC

Researchers in the AEC industry have long engaged with the interpretation of the term “innovation” and its meaning within this sector. For instance, Toole [46] described construction innovation as the application of technology that is new to an organization and significantly improves the quality of design and construction by decreasing cost, increasing performance, and improving business processes. Manseau and Seaden in [47] characterized innovation in construction as new ideas introduced to a particular enterprise that extend beyond technologies and can relate to process, market, and management. Additionally, Froese and Rankin in [48] considered an AEC innovation as the process through which new ideas enter practice, specifically describing it as new technology that changes in design and management practices. They categorize this change as a process-type innovation versus an innovation arising from a new product.

Although the disruptive innovation theory has not been extensively discussed by AEC researchers, the term “disruptive innovation” is frequently used when investigating the impacts of certain AEC innovations without providing a systematic analysis of their disruptiveness. Examples include the investigation of disruptive technologies for facilities management [49], the discussion on the context of BIM adoption [50], and the study of the impact of disruptive technological innovations on sustainable construction [51].

It should be noted that some AEC researchers argue that disruptive innovation theory may not be the most appropriate framework for understanding the impacts of AEC innovation adoption due to the complexities in the industrial dynamics of the AEC sector [52]. Nevertheless, several examples in AEC research adopt different “perspectives” and “levels” of influence from the disruptive innovation theory mentioned earlier to assess AEC innovations, such as in [28,48,53].

Table 1. An overview of AEC-related literature and innovation aspects addressed in each.

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]	🗸	🗸	🗸		🗸

presents an overview of AEC-related literature and its respective thematic connections to the broader discourse on disruptive innovation in other domains. This comparison is intended to illustrate the fragmented nature of current research in this area.

Furthermore, it should be noted that sometimes the topic of disruption is discussed in the AEC literature without specifically being referred to as such. For instance, David et al. [53] introduce a framework for assessing construction innovation that covers two major perspectives of innovation adoption: (1) “Changes to”; (2) “Improvements in”. Both perspectives can be considered as characteristics of disruption. While these examples might not provide a holistic view of disruptive innovation in the AEC industry, they provide a foundation for developing a framework to systematically characterize the disruptiveness of innovations in the AEC context.

The AEC industry comprises a range of stakeholder sectors that experience and respond to innovation-driven disruptions in distinct ways depending on their roles and responsibilities.

Table 2. An overview of AEC-related literature on innovation adoption and their coverage of different stakeholder sectors.

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

provides a summary of research that explicitly differentiates among these stakeholder groups, reinforcing the argument that any comprehensive analysis of innovation disruptiveness in the AEC context must account for these distinctions.

2.3. Key Takeaways from the Literature

As shown in Table 1, the related research on disruptive innovation in the AEC industry has been fragmented due to the diverse and complex nature of the field (see Table 2), and as noted by [52]. Reviewing related works from the AEC domain underscores the longstanding recognition that the subject of innovation is multidimensional, as stated by [47]; this is a fact widely accepted by AEC researchers. That being said, these dimensions have not yet been presented in a systematic way and in alignment with findings from other domains that support the disruptive innovation theory.

Another noteworthy observation from reviewing AEC literature is that a large number of these works focus on the disruption innovative technology products bring to the construction industry, specifically to construction firms and organizations [47,48,54,55].

A further finding from reviewing related literature is that descriptions of AEC disruptive innovations often focus on “what” is being disrupted and “who” is being impacted. The “who” generally refers to disruptions related to people, which can include individual people or groups of organized people working together on projects or within organizations. The “what” encompasses various disruption characteristics affecting people within the AEC industry. This includes how they are organized from a business model perspective, how they conduct their work, and the expected outcomes of their collective or individual efforts, as discussed by [38]. Hence, these common threads can help develop an overarching approach for characterizing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations despite the fragmented nature of this industry.

The next section aims to reconcile the disruptive innovation theory with the body of research from the AEC industry and to develop a multidimensional framework for assessing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations.

3. Research Approach

As discussed in the previous section, a systematic analysis method to examine the disruptiveness of AEC innovations is missing. While developing a new framework for addressing this gap appears to be a suitable analysis method, the inherent complexity and diversity of innovations within the AEC industry necessitate a nuanced and multi-layered research methodology. This diversity—ranging from technological advancements, process improvements, to new business models—indeed presents a significant challenge in developing a universally applicable framework for assessing disruptiveness. Given this heterogeneity, a generalized validation of such a framework across all types of innovations would not only be impractical but could also lead to superficial assessments that fail to capture the unique characteristics and impacts of specific innovations.

To tackle this challenge, the research methodology is structured into two dovetailed layers, each serving a distinct yet complementary purpose. The first methodology layer (Figure 1) focuses on the development of the framework itself, drawing on a comprehensive literature review (presented in Section 2) to synthesize existing knowledge into a cohesive assessment framework specifically tailored to the AEC context. The objective of this layer, which aligns with the second research question, is to develop a new, structured framework consisting of the necessary characteristics of disruption that is flexible, adaptable, and capable of being applied to a wide range of innovations within the industry (details are discussed in Section 4).

However, due to the diversity of the AEC innovations, a general validation of the framework is not feasible. A one-size-fits-all validation approach would overlook the specific contextual factors and varying degrees of disruptiveness that different innovations exhibit. Therefore, a second layer of the methodology is introduced (Figure 2), following an exemplary validation approach, as discussed in [65], by providing evidence and validating a study for a specific subdomain, such as IPD in the case of this research. This second methodology layer is essential for demonstrating the framework’s applicability and effectiveness in a specific context, providing a concrete example of how the framework can be operationalized and adjusted to accommodate the unique characteristics of a particular innovation. Such a validation approach is not uncommon in the field of disruptive innovation. For instance, the authors in [66] followed such an approach to validate their framework, using a case study on the Nintendo Wii. In another example, the researchers in [67] followed this selective approach to validate their framework for forecasting the disruptiveness of an innovation.

By conducting this innovation-specific validation, the research not only tests the framework’s robustness but also illustrates its flexibility and adaptability, which are key qualities necessary for a tool intended to assess such a diverse range of innovations. This layered approach ensures that the framework is both theoretically sound and practically relevant, capable of being tailored to the specific needs and challenges of various AEC innovations. Consequently, the two-layered methodology is not just a structural choice but a necessary strategy to ensure the framework’s comprehensive development and targeted validation, thereby enhancing its overall utility and credibility within the industry.

It is important to note that the “disruptiveness analysis” and the “qualitative validation” steps of the methodology presented in the second layer must be applied repeatedly to each characteristic of the framework for every innovation. Applying the disruptiveness analysis and its qualitative validation iteratively for each characteristic is necessary because every characteristic represents a distinct aspect of disruption. For instance, the disruption caused by IPD to different industry sectors, when analyzed at the project level through the business model lens, differs from the disruption to the same sectors and on the same level when analyzed through the process lens. Therefore, re-running the two steps, i.e., “disruptiveness analysis” and “qualitative validation”, isolates evidence specific to that characteristic and prevents results from being averaged across characteristics. This iterative implementation will be discussed and demonstrated in the following sections.

3.1. Methodology Layer 1: Development of the Framework for Assessing Disruptiveness

3.1.1. Literature Review and Identification of the Research Gap

The research commenced with an extensive literature review to understand the fundamental characteristics of disruptive innovation from various domains and integrate this knowledge into the existing body of research in the AEC sector as discussed in Section 2. This review supported the development of a new framework specifically tailored to examining different characteristics of disruptive innovations within the AEC context.

3.1.2. Framework Development

The insights gained from the literature review were utilized to construct a formalized framework that encompasses the dimensions of disruptive innovation relevant to the AEC industry. The process of developing this multidimensional framework is presented in Section 4. This framework includes key characteristics and provides a systematic approach to examining disruptiveness.

The key dimensions of the new framework were primarily derived from a thorough analysis of the literature, leading to the identification of common “lenses” through which researchers view innovations, the different “levels” on which AEC-related innovations have been analyzed, and the various “stakeholder sectors” that determine the context of related research. These three dimensions, which will be fully discussed in the following section, are as follows:

• 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.

While this composition of dimensions in this particular format is novel, the content of each cell, i.e., the intersection of these three dimensions within the framework, also known as “voxels”, is the key contribution of the new framework. It essentially communicates the various disruptive characteristics of an innovation that need to be examined. This means that the framework assists researchers and practitioners in examining each characteristic of disruption from three different dimensions. To achieve this, each characteristic of the framework is broken down into relevant indicators.

Table 3. The concept of a three-dimensional framework for assessing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations in table format.

				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: Indicator #1 Indicator #2 …
			Consultants
			Contractors
	Organizations Level	Dimension 3: Industry Sectors	Clients
			Consultants
			Contractors

provides a generic view of the concept of the new three-dimensional framework. For ease of use and understanding, the framework is presented in a two-dimensional table format, where the “stakeholder sectors” dimension is repeated across different industry “levels.” The development of this framework will be discussed in greater detail in Section 4.

Please note that in this analysis process, each characteristic can be examined by investigating specific indicators, as presented in Table 3. Indicators are the observable metrics that operationalize each characteristic of disruption. In other words, through such indicators, researchers can determine whether a specific characteristic of disruption occurs or not. These indicators are inspired by the original work of [33,38] on disruptive innovation perspectives. While the disruptive characteristics of AEC innovations, such as the disruption of the “business model” of “projects” in the “consultant sector” or the disruption of work “processes” within “organizations” in the “contractor sector,” generally remain consistent across different AEC innovations, the related indicators will require adjustments based on the nature of the innovation being investigated. Additionally, each examined characteristic will necessitate appropriate validation or verification measures.

Therefore, implementing the methodology in the second layer involves a repetitive process of examining each disruptive characteristic using contextually adjusted indicators, followed by suitable validation measures. This process will be comprehensively demonstrated in Section 5.

3.1.3. Exemplary Validation

Given the diversity of AEC innovations, an overall validation of the framework is impractical. However, the framework can be partially validated through its operationalization in a specific context, which leads to the second layer of our methodology, outlined in the following section. An example of the operationalization of the new assessment framework is presented in Section 5.

3.2. Methodology Layer 2: Exemplary Validation Through Selective Operationalization

As previously discussed, the first methodology layer involves developing a generalizable framework, which constitutes a significant contribution to the field. However, the validation of this framework necessitates a second, nested research layer, wherein the framework is operationalized within the specific context of a selected AEC innovation. This secondary research layer follows its distinct methodology, encompassing phases of innovation selection, data collection, analysis, and validation.

3.2.1. Selection of a Specific AEC Innovation

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) was selected as the focus for this operationalization due to its frequent characterization as a disruptive innovation within the AEC industry. IPD is commonly understood as a concept for creating a virtual, temporary, vertical company, providing a legal framework that fosters the highest level of collaboration among different disciplines throughout a project’s lifecycle to achieve overall project goals and anticipated outcomes [10,14].

IPD is emerging as a viable project delivery model in the industry, with success stories from around the world as documented in various research, including [9,10,13,15]. These success stories suggest that implementing IPD in a project can lead to optimization of planning, reduction of waste, cost, time, and risk [29], it can also stimulate knowledge sharing at an early stage of the project, leading to an effective, feasible, and constructible design [11,30]. Hence, IPD as a revolutionary innovation has the potential to disrupt conventional business models, processes, and outcomes of construction projects. Therefore, it falls within the scope of disruptive innovation theory and can be considered a disruptive innovation.

Despite IPD’s promising benefits highlighted in the research, its disruptive nature is causing barriers to its widespread adoption in the construction industry, as published in [14]. According to this research, these barriers can be generally categorized as resistance to change, cultural misalignment, immaturity of the IPD contract, increased involvement in project management, lack of trust in the new process, and structural misalignment. As one observes, the barriers that IPD adoption is facing are profoundly anchored in the AEC industry and strongly suggest a significant disruption to the industry caused by IPD. Hence, it is essential to systematically understand the disruption caused by IPD, which results in such barriers, in order to develop strategies for the successful adoption of IPD and ultimately achieve the benefits suggested by research. In this connection, the new framework for assessing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations can be tremendously valuable.

3.2.2. Data Collection on Selected Innovation

We analyzed three Canadian IPD research datasets from three different but related research studies, chosen based on the volume and richness of the empirical data they provide. Additionally, the research team was directly involved in the data collection process for these substantial datasets. At this point, it is important to emphasize that we selected three research studies—not three construction projects—as our empirical datasets.

Table 4. An overview of the three selected Canadian IPD research datasets.

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].

lists the contextual variables available for each dataset and clarifies the level of granularity and volume attainable in each case. Together, these datasets and the related research projects, which are introduced in the following, serve as exemplary cases, demonstrating the application of the framework while offering insightful perspectives on the complex dynamics of IPD adoption within the AEC sector, particularly in the Canadian context. It is also important to point out that although these studies focused on IPD, they did not directly investigate its disruptiveness. Nevertheless, the disruptions and challenges reported by practitioners and observed by the research team during these studies were the primary motivations for the current research on assessing IPD disruptiveness.

The selected research projects and their datasets align well with the required data to test the new framework. The first research is an ethnographic study conducted over multiple years on a unique construction project in British Columbia, Canada. It is a mixed-use project, combining healthcare and residential occupation, introducing high levels of complexity and challenges to the project team. The research team participated in more than 200 project meetings, conducted over 40 h of interviews with the project team, and performed 15 rounds of short surveys. This study primarily focuses on IPD implementation at the project level and has been instrumental in understanding disruption across different stakeholder sectors.

The second and third selected research projects are combinations of cross-organizational and cross-project studies conducted through intensive discussions with Canadian practitioners in focus groups and one-on-one interviews. In [14], the research team engaged more than 50 practitioners in 10 focus group studies, producing over 30 h of recorded data. The last selected study conducts a cross-project analysis on three Canadian IPD projects, involving more than 30 different participants in more than 40 h of interviews and 3 sets of surveys. The details of this research are published in [15]. These two research projects were crucial in understanding the IPD disruption, mostly at the organizational level.

It is important to note that in all three studies, the researchers endeavored to cover all three industry levels and stakeholder sectors from various perspectives. Although none of these projects specifically focused on the practitioner level, the comprehensive data collected provided significant insights into IPD disruption at the practitioner level. Additionally, the research team conducted interviews with four well-known IPD experts in Canada to validate the identified disruptions caused by IPD.

3.2.3. Framework Application and Disruptiveness Analysis

The new multidimensional framework was applied to the collected data to analyze IPD’s disruptiveness. This involved systematically examining how IPD impacts business models, processes, and expected outcomes across different stakeholder sectors. In this investigation, the generic indicators for each disruption characteristic, i.e., each cell of the framework, were first carefully tailored to the specific context of IPD. These indicators were then examined across the three dimensions of the framework for each characteristic. Each finding was validated through a recurrent approach involving expert interviews, which will be comprehensively demonstrated in Section 5.

3.2.4. Qualitative Validation Through Expert Interviews

Given the qualitative nature of this research, expert interviews were conducted to validate the findings derived from the framework. These interviews provided additional insights, ensuring the robustness and reliability of the assessment. Specifically, excerpts from these interviews were used to verify the assessment results and the effectiveness of the identified indicators, reinforcing the framework’s applicability.

4. A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Assessing the Disruptiveness of AEC Innovations

As highlighted in Section 2, there is a notable research gap in the realm of disruptive innovation within the AEC industry. This emerging and yet incomplete area of study is the focus of this work, which aims to stimulate further exploration and understanding in this field. This section mostly focuses on implementing the first layer of the methodology to develop a generic framework for the disruptiveness of AEC innovations. For this aim, a systematic literature review, encompassing various sectors including the AEC, was conducted to delve into the theme of disruptive innovation. This exploration, detailed in Section 2, served as a foundational step in characterizing “disruptive innovation” specifically for the AEC industry and identifying the diverse “characteristics of disruptiveness” pertinent to innovations within this sector.

The new analysis framework (

Table 5. Three-dimensional framework for assessing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations including all potential indicators.

			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?

) for the disruptiveness of AEC innovations is developed mainly based on the previous works of [38,64], which are both comprehensive works on reviewing the disruptive innovation theory. Then the interpretation from the disruptive innovation theory field was combined with the relevant works on innovation from the AEC sector, mainly [28,50,56,60]. It should be noted that while most components of this framework are grounded in the existing body of knowledge, the novelty of this framework lies in the composition of its components and its adaptability to AEC innovations through flexible indicators tailored to each disruption characteristic.

The details of the new framework are discussed in the remainder of this section. Each cell of this framework is referred to as a “characteristic” of disruptiveness, and each disruptiveness characteristic contains a series of disruption “indicators” that need to be investigated for that specific characteristic. Ultimately, the investigation of these indicators is the core assessment methodology for identifying the disruptiveness of a specific AEC innovation.

Please note that although the descriptions and categorizations of the disruption dimensions, their characteristics, and indicators are part of a systematically formalized approach (methodology layer 1), they are intentionally kept at a high level to provide researchers with the flexibility to adapt them to their specific contexts when assessing the disruptiveness of a specific AEC innovation (methodology layer 2). Therefore, the indicators for different characteristics of disruptiveness must be developed and tailored individually for each innovation. The indicators shown in Table 5 do not represent an exhaustive list but are instead a set of generic examples meant to demonstrate how such indicators can be used to examine a specific characteristic. The new framework for examining the disruptiveness of AEC innovations considers the following three essential dimensions:

• 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

The foundational work of [38] was the main contributor to determining the three analysis “lenses” in developing the new framework. In their original work, the authors refer to these lenses as “perspectives,” developed through extensive examinations of over 160 publications related to innovation. The term “lenses” was chosen instead of “perspectives” to avoid confusion with the term “characteristics” in the proposed multidimensional framework. Additionally, these lenses were paired with corresponding indicators in the form of questions to enhance their clarity for readers. The three “lenses” in the new framework for assessing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations, which are inspired by the findings in [38], are the following:

• “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.

These analysis lenses have frequently been utilized by researchers to explore various AEC-related topics. Depending on the research objectives and scope, not all three lenses may be considered together. However, numerous examples of innovation-related research employ some or all of these lenses. For instance, the authors in [60] combined financial goals with business objectives and team culture to describe high-performing IPD projects. While they primarily cover the “business model” and “expected outcome” lenses, separate sections are dedicated to work processes and tools for practical IPD implementation, which align with the broader “process lens.”

Similarly, in [50], the authors examined the impact of BIM adoption using a related set of lenses. They discussed “BIM implementation strategies” (a “process lens”) and “project delivery models” and “organizational business strategies” (a “business model lens”), along with desired outcomes like “increased quality and productivity” (an “outcome lens”). Another example is [56], where the researchers analyzed the impact of Lean Construction (LC) on sustainability. Their analysis, based on various “LC techniques” or “practices” (interpreted as “processes”), and different “business cases,” focuses on sustainability goals as the main “expected outcome.” Hence, as reviewing the related literature suggests, the three selected analysis lenses for disruptive assessment are frequently considered by researchers when investigating AEC innovations.

4.2. Dimension 2: Industry Levels for Assessing Disruption

In the new multidimensional framework, the disruption assessment occurs across three distinct industry levels: practitioners (or individuals), projects, and organizations. Such categorization is a common approach to dissecting the AEC industry when analyzing various research characteristics. Several studies have either partially or completely adopted this categorization. For instance, Poirier et al. [50] employed it while investigating BIM implementation strategies, Peansupap and Walker [57] in their study of the constraints in implementing information communication technology (ICT) in the AEC industry, Griffiths et al. [58] when examining the impact of different infrastructure sustainability tools, and [59] when exploring the practical role of Lean Construction for industry improvements.

Upon reviewing these three industry levels, i.e., practitioners, projects, and organizations, it becomes evident that they share an interconnected, imperative relationship. This relationship can generally be understood as follows:

• 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.

This interconnected, imperative relationship underscores the need for any industry-related analysis to encompass all three levels to provide a comprehensive view of a subject matter. Therefore, all three levels are integral to the new framework for assessing the disruptiveness of AEC innovations.

4.3. Dimension 3: Industry Stakeholder Sectors for Assessing Disruption

The new framework incorporates various major industry “stakeholder sectors” commonly recognized in AEC analyses as its third dimension. In assessing disruptive AEC innovations, these sectors should broadly represent the expertise of individual practitioners, the context of projects, and the nature of organizations. The AEC industry can be segmented into different sectors in various ways, depending on the objective of the analysis. However, the research team has chosen to focus on the three most prevalent sectors: “clients,” “consultants,” and “contractors.” This categorization acknowledges the potential for expansion and adjustment with additional sectors, such as “suppliers” and “operators,” as demonstrated in the examples below.

In a high-level categorization, the “clients” sector can encompass all engagements, activities, and subject matters related to initiating and developing a construction project. The “consultants” sector covers engagements, activities, and subject matters related to planning and design, often referred to as “soft activities” predominantly conducted off-site. The “contractors” sector, on the other hand, is responsible for on-site engagements, activities, and subject matters, known as “hard activities.”

One instance of such categorization of the AEC industry sectors is found in the work of [62], who explored the managing drivers of innovation in construction networks, adding “municipal departments” and “real estate agents” to the “consultants” and “contractors” sectors. Liu and Chieh [63] emphasized the critical role of the learning transfer climate in fostering construction innovation, dividing their research scope into “clients,” “contractors,” and “consultants” sectors. Similarly, Ørstavik et al. [61] presented a collection of studies on construction innovation, often categorizing industry sectors as “clients,” “consultants,” “contractors,” and “suppliers.” Ozorhon and Karahan [68] followed a similar categorization while investigating the critical success factors of BIM implementation, distinguishing between “architects” and “other consultants,” and differentiating “subcontractors” from the “general contractor.” However, in the new framework, the primary focus is on the three major industry sectors: “clients,” “contractors,” and “consultants,” and it is left to the researchers to expand this scope based on the specific innovations they wish to investigate.

5. Exemplary Validation Through Selective Operationalization of the Framework for Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)

As discussed in Section 3, the second layer of the methodology focuses on the operationalization of the new framework for a selected AEC innovation, specifically IPD in this case.

Table 6. Overview of disruption of the AEC industry by IPD adoption.

				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

provides an overview of the operationalization of our framework to assess the disruptiveness of IPD adoption in this research, which guides the discussions in the remainder of this section. This operationalization process is supported by the collected data from the three research projects introduced in Section 3 and involves examining each characteristic of the framework, determining the relevant indicators, and providing the corresponding validation based on inputs from domain experts. For clarity, this approach is organized following the industry levels dimension. For simplicity reasons the framework has been divided into segments corresponding to each industry level, allowing the content to be reviewed in a more focused and efficient way.

For each industry level, related insights to each analysis lens, i.e., “business model,” “process,” and “expected outcome” lenses, are provided. Where applicable, different industry sectors within the dataset were referenced to cover all three dimensions of the new framework. It is important to note that the analysis and outcomes presented below are exemplary, demonstrating how the framework can be operationalized. These outcomes may vary depending on individual, project, organizational, and industry circumstances and available datasets. Similarly, the indicators presented in the following tables do not constitute an exhaustive list of indicators for assessing the disruptiveness of IPD beyond the scope of the data collected in this specific research project.

5.1. Disruption of “Practitioners” by Adopting IPD Through Different Lenses

IPD, as the name suggests, is an innovation that is developed to address different project settings, delivery steps, and outcomes. However, it still can impact participating individuals at the practitioner level.

Table 7. Indicators for disruption of “practitioners” by IPD adoption.

			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?

provides a section of the new framework associated with the practitioner level and includes a revision of the generic questions indicators specifically adjusted for IPD adoption to help identify relevant indicators for each characteristic.

5.1.1. Business Model Lens

In most IPD projects, individual practitioners usually do not receive a new contract solely for participating in an IPD project, and the way they are compensated is not affected by this engagement. This was also the case in all IPD projects that the research team has studied. Hence, this disruption characteristic, i.e., the disruption of practitioners by IPD through the business model lens, was negligible in the studied projects by the research team, and this was valid across all different stakeholder sectors. Although the business model for engaging individual practitioners might not necessarily be disrupted by adopting IPD, organizations might consider changes in this characteristic and develop financial incentive measures, such as a bonus system, for their workforce when participating in an IPD project. This way, not only the organizations but also the practitioners working directly on IPD projects would benefit from this innovative delivery model. The quote below from one of the interviews with practitioners highlights the absence of financial incentive for individual project participants in an IPD project.

“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

IPD has an impact to some degree on how practitioners conduct their work in IPD projects, but participating in some IPD projects does not necessarily mean that the entire work practices of individual practitioners will be disrupted. More specifically, based on the research team’s observations, different stakeholders from various sectors tend to follow the same work process as they would in their regular projects, with the primary difference being the requirement for more intensive collaboration with others and contributing to project management efforts to optimize team performance in IPD projects. Therefore, the disruption of practitioners by IPD through the process lens was minor in the studied projects by the research team. For instance, designers could design in the same way they always have on other projects without IPD. However, they were required to contribute some additional efforts to the project, such as committing to co-locate once a week or multiple times a week, participating in extra training, following a pull plan, and measuring and reporting their performance, but the act of designing itself did not change. This absence of major disruption in practitioners’ work processes is, in fact, a positive IPD characteristic that was highlighted in several expert interviews conducted in these studies.

“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

As previously noted, IPD necessitates a highly collaborative process, and the absence of any key practitioner could potentially cause minor disruptions in day-to-day practices. However, since IPD teams are designed to be dynamic and flexible, they ensure that the overall success of the IPD implementation is not compromised by the absence of individual practitioners regardless of their industry sector.

5.1.3. Expected Outcome Lens

In most IPD projects, practitioners commonly undergo rigorous training sessions on IPD and Lean Construction techniques. These trainings often cover topics such as Shared Risks and Rewards, the Risk Register, Pull Planning, Set-based Design, Target Value Design, and design coordination through Building Information Modeling (BIM). Such training can have significant long-term impacts on practitioners, as they gain new skills and experience in collaborative, high-efficiency project delivery, leading to their personal growth, as indicated in the quote below.

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

This personal growth may lead to new work opportunities and a higher quality of work. This study also indicates that practitioners involved in IPD projects often adopt new personal work behaviors, cultures, and mindsets that are more inclusive and collaborative. Nevertheless, this shift in mindset is believed to necessitate the adoption of IPD to foster such fundamental change as emphasized in an interview with an IPD expert. In other words, without IPD, such a shift in mindset would not be easily achievable.

“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

Similarly, several research participants, regardless of their disciplinary background, specifically emphasized that this change in mindset significantly differs from the prevailing work mindset in the traditional construction industry, as the quote below states.

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

Although these observations are subjective, they strongly indicate IPD’s potential for disruptive impact on individual practitioners. Therefore, in the studied projects by the research team, the disruption of practitioners by IPD, viewed through the lens of expected outcomes, was significant.

5.2. Disruption of “Projects” by Adopting IPD Through Different Lenses

Since the entire concept of IPD is based on the objective to put the project first and make it as efficient as possible [60], it is consequently expected that the adoption of this innovation has the highest disruption at the project level.

Table 8. Indicators for disruption of “projects” by IPD adoption.

			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?

provides a section of the new framework associated with the project level and includes a revision of the generic indicators presented in Section 4 adjusted for IPD adoption to help identify relevant indicators for each characteristic.

5.2.1. Business Model Lens

IPD disrupts the business model of projects tremendously by providing a completely new way of creating a project team, financing the project, and using new contract models. For instance, in Canada, a new Canadian contract model has been introduced by the Canadian Construction Documents Committee (“CCDC”) to facilitate the IPD adoption by providing a legal and financial framework for the realization of the "Shared Risk and Reward" principle, which, according to (Allison et al., 2018) [60], is one of the most powerful components of the IPD concept.

“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 this way, the risk and profit model for all signatories of the IPD contract will be completely redefined. Thus, the adoption of IPD contracts, which assures the implementation of the Shared Risk and Reward principle in individual projects, causes a major disruption, as indicated in the quote below from one of the studied research projects.

“[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

Furthermore, adopting IPD means an integrative process with the engagement of all major parties at the very early stage of the project. This early engagement requires front-loaded project financing and a cash flow different from traditional project deliveries. The quote below emphasizes the advantage of early engagement in IPD, followed by another quote from this research highlighting the challenge with the front-loaded project financing.

“[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)

Additionally, IPD projects require financial transparency from all participating partners when calculating and estimating the project costs. These uncommon financial characteristics of IPD lead to significant disruption in the business model of construction projects, which consequently would necessitate the engagement of project partners who are not only capable of effective collaboration with other parties but also organizations that can comply with this disruptive business model. Hence, it can be concluded that, according to this research, the adoption of IPD can significantly disrupt construction projects through the business model lens perspective. This disruption is especially notable for the client sector, as they are often responsible for the financing and setting up of the legal framework of the projects.

5.2.2. Process Lens

The project implementation process in IPD projects is strongly impacted by Lean Thinking principles. This is why sometimes these two terminologies are mentioned together as “Lean/IPD.” According to [60], Lean Thinking gives IPD project teams a new work philosophy focused on efficiency and reliability. In other words, Lean Thinking methods provide the tools to achieve the highest efficiency in an IPD project and ensure that the project goals will be met. The quotes below underscore this fact.

“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)

The adoption of Lean/IPD principles can massively disrupt the implementation and workflows of projects at different phases, following a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) framework as discussed in [69]. This includes major changes such as having an additional “Validation Phase” before the detailed design starts, collaboratively creating a “Pull Plan” and strictly following it across different project phases, and establishing a Target Value Design (TVD) as well as a target cost construction approach. All these changes in an IPD project take place while maintaining full transparency in decision-making and in the financial aspects of the project as it is being conducted. Lean/IPD principles require project teams to manage their work and collaborate with each other in unprecedented ways compared to non-IPD projects. However, this high-intensity collaboration sometimes faces resistance due to its disruptive nature, as indicated in the quote below.

“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

Since this new way of conducting a project requires the collaboration of all major stakeholders regardless of their disciplinary background, the adoption of IPD can significantly disrupt construction projects through the process lens perspective.

5.2.3. Expected Outcome Lens

By having the early and continuous engagement of the project owner, and using the owner’s Conditions of Satisfaction (COS) as a compass, IPD projects can reach a higher level of owner satisfaction [10,14,60,70]. Client satisfaction in IPD projects was highlighted by the research participants throughout the study. For instance:

“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

Additionally, Lean/IPD techniques such as Target Value Design (TVD) and Just-In-Time (JIT) delivery are critical measures for delivering projects on time and on budget and subsequently enabling anticipated client satisfaction.

“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

Various case studies on IPD, including research projects that the research team has been part of, have shown that IPD projects can lead to more budget reliability and client satisfaction [10,13,15]. This is in stark contrast to the massive cost overruns [2] and delays in construction schedules [3,4,5] that the AEC industry is currently facing. Furthermore, IPD projects establish a work culture that differs from the often hostile and risk-averse environment common in other construction projects. In this way, the IPD adoption creates a new project culture that will somewhat change the setting of future projects, as indicated in the quote below.

“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

The significant disruptions in both expected project outcomes and team satisfaction underscore the reliability and increased certainty achievable in construction projects. This research has revealed that, within the projects studied, the disruptiveness of IPD, when assessed through the lens of expected outcomes, is especially notable for the project clients.

5.3. Disruption of “Organizations” by Adopting IPD Through Different Lenses

Although IPD is developed to mostly disrupt construction projects, it still can impact participating organizations from various aspects.

Table 9. Indicators for disruption of “organizations” by IPD adoption.

			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?

provides a section of the new framework associated with the organization level and includes a revision of the generic indicators adjusted for IPD adoption to help identify relevant indicators for each characteristic.

5.3.1. Business Model Lens

Since IPD is a project-oriented innovation, it is designed to have a minimal disruptive impact on organizations, thereby making it more attractive to organizations without prior IPD experience to participate in IPD projects. In other words, the lack of disruption at the organizational level is by design to facilitate wider industry adoption.

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

However, IPD can be disruptive to some owner organizations as they are required to be more active in IPD projects than in others, and be more engaged in the decision-making process. The quotes below from the studied projects highlight this fact and point out the challenge that some owner organizations face in smaller IPD projects, where the expected gained benefit challenges the extra allocation of workforce to the project.

“[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

This disruption is not limited to the owner organizations and can occur in other project participants, usually smaller firms, as indicated in the quote below. Nevertheless, the research team couldn’t find any strong evidence that the IPD adoption would fundamentally disrupt the business model of different organizations, and identified that disruption is mostly limited to staff allocation.

“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

In examining the internal processes and workflows of organizations involved in IPD projects, the research team found no noteworthy disruptions. This absence of disruption aligns with the underlying philosophy of IPD as a project-oriented innovation, as it is designed to integrate seamlessly into organizational processes and workflows, considering that many of these organizations primarily engage in non-IPD projects. This finding was consistent across all the IPD projects studied by the research team. Consequently, the impact of IPD on organizations, in terms of disrupting their internal processes and workflows, was negligible in this research. This observation held true across various stakeholder sectors.

5.3.3. Expected Outcome Lens

While participating in IPD projects may not fundamentally disrupt the internal processes of individual organizations, this research indicates that involvement in IPD projects can influence how an organization approaches future projects and how it defines organizational performance, value, and success. This experience can lead to the evolution of a new organizational culture.

“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

This observation does not imply that organizations will entirely overhaul their business models or strategies for pursuing projects. Rather, it suggests that participation in IPD projects can broaden their scope and open up future opportunities, potentially leading to positive impacts on their organization.

“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

Therefore, the research team observed a moderate level of disruption regarding the expected outcome for participating organizations in IPD projects.

6. Conclusions and Future Works

This research introduces a novel approach for characterizing and assessing the disruptiveness of IPD as an AEC innovation. Grounded in disruptive innovation theory and supported by an extensive review of existing literature, the two-layered methodology developed in this study offers a structured means of evaluating disruptiveness within the AEC industry. The first layer focuses on constructing a multidimensional framework to assess disruptive innovation, while the second layer operationalizes the framework for partial validation, using IPD as an exemplary case. The proposed framework integrates various characteristics of disruption relevant to AEC innovations and includes the following dimensions and their respective categories:

• 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

The framework offers potential indicators in the form of guiding questions to help researchers identify pertinent disruptive characteristics when applying the framework to specific innovations. Importantly, the descriptions and categorizations within the framework are designed to be adaptable, allowing researchers and practitioners to adjust these categories as necessary to suit the specific innovation being assessed. The second layer of the methodology demonstrates the practical validation of the framework by applying it to evaluate the disruptiveness of IPD in the AEC industry. Drawing from a range of IPD-focused research projects, this validation confirms both the disruptive effects of IPD and the validity of the new framework in this context. Thus, the research not only explores IPD’s disruptiveness but also establishes the framework as a valuable tool to be considered for assessing innovation in AEC. Regarding the disruptiveness of IPD in the Canadian AEC industry, this research reveals notable disruptions at the practitioner level, especially from the outcome lens, and significant impacts at various project levels. However, the disruption to organizations participating in IPD projects appears to be more moderate. These observations and assessments are contingent on the data collected from individual research projects and require further study.

6.1. Key Research Limitations

There are certain limitations to the presented study that should be acknowledged at this stage. The operationalization of the new framework and the assessment of the disruptiveness of a specific innovation are highly influenced by the collected data and the researchers’ interpretations. Consequently, the findings presented here for IPD disruptiveness may not fully align with the experiences of experts from other regions. This is particularly relevant in the construction domain, where the mindset and behavior of organizations, projects, and practitioners are often deeply influenced by local circumstances and culture. Moreover, it is important to note that this research does not explore the root causes of disruption, nor does it aim to propose strategies for disrupting the AEC industry or enabling such disruptions. All these topics merit their own respective comprehensive studies, which this research aspires to inspire. Furthermore, our analysis does not include matched baseline data from conventional delivery projects, so the magnitude of IPD’s cost and schedule advantages remains unquantified—an important limitation that future studies should address by pairing IPD cases with comparable traditional benchmarks.

6.2. Practical Recommendations for AEC Industry

Drawing on our findings, these insights can be turned into actions that industry stakeholders at every level can undertake to better anticipate the disruptive implications of adopting IPD for the first time. Whether you are an individual practitioner, a project team, or an organization, consider the following:

• 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

Looking ahead, we aim to expand the application of this framework to evaluate other AEC innovations, such as the adoption of BIM for Facility Management (FM), BIM for Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA), and the transition to virtual remote work environments. Additionally, future research will focus on developing a systematic methodology to identify enablers that can facilitate the adoption of these innovations, leveraging the insights gained from these ongoing assessments.