Performance outcome assessment of the integrated project delivery (IPD) method for commercial construction projects in USA

Abstract

This article presents the results of a quantitative study evaluating relationships between various project outcome metrics and the use of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). Conflicting results within the literature about these relationships, coupled with significant industry interest, motivated this study. Data from 93 building construction projects were analyzed in a multivariate context controlling for the contribution of covariates unrelated to delivery methods. At the 95% confidence level (CL), significant performance outcomes were not found for IPD projects. Though, at the 90% CL, lower levels of cost and schedule growth were found to be significant for IPD projects when compared to projects completed using other common delivery methods. Also, IPD healthcare projects were found to have significantly fewer Requests for Information (RFI) than non-IPD healthcare projects. Lastly, urban projects showed significantly higher levels of cost and schedule growth, along with increased RFI and punchlist frequency counts, than either suburban or rural projects. Recommendations include exercising caution in the use of IPD as a means to check cost and schedule growth while improving design quality. Project owners should also moderate expectations that IPD is a solution to many of the industry’s problems as postulated by prevalent qualitative and trade literatures.