1 AIA Update on Integrated Project Delivery Lean Construction Institute Design Forum January 8 2009...
-
Upload
brook-wright -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of 1 AIA Update on Integrated Project Delivery Lean Construction Institute Design Forum January 8 2009...
1
AIA Update on Integrated Project Delivery
Lean Construction Institute Design ForumJanuary 8 2009
Markku Allison, AIA
2
position statement | 2007
3
Position No. 26: Project Delivery
The AIA believes that every project delivery process must address the quality, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of our built environment. This
can best be effected through industry-wide adoption of an integrated approach to project delivery methodologies characterized by early
involvement of owners, designers, constructors, fabricators and end user/operators in an environment of effective collaboration and open
information sharing. The AIA also believes that an architect is well qualified to serve as a leader on integrated project delivery teams. The AIA further
believes that evolving project delivery processes require integration of education and practice in design and construction, both within and across
disciplines.
4
Ramifications
• Applies to all projects• Integrated, collaborative models are best
• Early involvement is important• Open information sharing is important
• Design and construction education integration should happen• Leadership may involve more than just the architect
5
sea change for the Institute
6
integrated project delivery guide | 2007.11.05
7
ipdg | key ideas
Principles of Integrated Project Delivery(general)
Mutual Respect and TrustMutual Benefit and Reward
Collaborative Innovation and Decision MakingEarly Involvement of Key Participants
Early Goal DefinitionIntensified Planning
Open CommunicationAppropriate Technology
Organization and Leadership
8
ipdg | key ideas
9
ipdg | key ideas
IPD principles can be applied to a variety of contractual arrangements
10
market interest (2009.01.08)
Owner Designer ConstructorSubcontractor EngineerSystems Supplier AttorneyInsurer StudentEducatorNone of the AboveGRAND TOTAL
223279711930310
1487332542114499518
199117926
12%44%11%2%8%2%3%1%3%3%
11%100%
11
research
12
Nearly 80% of respondents indicate they are aware of IPD; about half of respondents view themselves as knowledgeable or experienced.
Confidential
Base: Total Respondents n=2051
13
Based on the definition, reduction of conflict is the IPD attribute of greatest value to project teams.
Confidential
Base: Total Respondents n=2051
14
Based upon the definition, early involvement of key participants is the most important principle of IPD.
Confidential
Base: Total Respondents n=2051
15
Of the potential barriers provided to respondents, lack of legal precedent and industry partner skill sets are the greatest barriers to pursuing IPD.
Confidential
Base: Knowledgeable/Experienced with IPD n=1074
16
Lack of trust, lack of skills, lack of information about process and lack of appropriate technology are not significant barriers for most segments.
Confidential
Owner (n=137)
Architect (n=708)
Engineer (n=60)
Contractor (n=137)
Sub-contractor
(n=32)*
Know-ledgeable (n=583)
Experienced (n=480)
Lack of Legal Precedent 61% 67% 57% 52% 53% 76% 47%Industry Partner Support Not There 47% 58% 63% 52% 59% 62% 48%Lack of Insurance 46% 57% 45% 39% 53% 62% 41%Procurement Constraints/Limitations 56% 54% 43% 48% 44% 58% 45%Industry Partner Skill Sets 53% 64% 67% 50% 63% 67% 53%Uncertainty About Risk 48% 59% 53% 39% 38% 67% 39%Uncertainty about Compensation Structure
47% 56% 60% 38% 31% 65% 37%
Lack of Trust in Industry Partners 38% 36% 33% 24% 26% 38% 30%Lack of Necessary Skills 34% 25% 24% 10% 22% 29% 18%Lack of Info About Process 29% 28% 20% 25% 36% 32% 22%Lack Appropriate Technology 34% 21% 18% 13% 22% 26% 17%
Owners are the least likely to believe that lack of support by the industry is a barrier to IPD. The remaining segments view it as a barrier.
17
Lack of trust, lack of skills, lack of information about process and lack of appropriate technology are not significant barriers for most segments.
Confidential
Owner (n=137)
Architect (n=708)
Engineer (n=60)
Contractor (n=137)
Sub-contractor
(n=32)*
Know-ledgeable (n=583)
Experienced (n=480)
Lack of Legal Precedent 61% 67% 57% 52% 53% 76% 47%Industry Partner Support Not There 47% 58% 63% 52% 59% 62% 48%Lack of Insurance 46% 57% 45% 39% 53% 62% 41%Procurement Constraints/Limitations 56% 54% 43% 48% 44% 58% 45%Industry Partner Skill Sets 53% 64% 67% 50% 63% 67% 53%Uncertainty About Risk 48% 59% 53% 39% 38% 67% 39%Uncertainty about Compensation Structure
47% 56% 60% 38% 31% 65% 37%
Lack of Trust in Industry Partners 38% 36% 33% 24% 26% 38% 30%Lack of Necessary Skills 34% 25% 24% 10% 22% 29% 18%Lack of Info About Process 29% 28% 20% 25% 36% 32% 22%Lack Appropriate Technology 34% 21% 18% 13% 22% 26% 17%
Owners are the least likely to believe that lack of support by the industry is a barrier to IPD. The remaining segments view it as a barrier.
18
1052 projects: over 30% behind schedule and over budget
Source: AIA Survey 2008
19
Source: AIA Survey 2008
38% of DBB projects behind schedule22% of IPD projects behind schedule
62% of DBB projects on or ahead78% of IPD projects on or ahead
20
Source: AIA Survey 2008
37% of DBB projects over budget25% of IPD projects over budget
63% of DBB projects on or under budget75% of IPD projects on or under budget
21
488 IPD projects: overages drop by almost 2/3
Source: AIA Survey 2008
90% of IPD projects on or ahead of schedule86% of IPD projects on or under budget
22
BIM appears to be influential in the success of IPD projects.
Confidential
Base: Experienced with IPD n=488Base: Experienced/Project included BIM n=254
23
Sustainability goals are common in IPD projects, and appear to be influential in achieving sustainability goals.
Confidential
Base: Experienced with IPD n=488Base: Experienced/Project included
Sustainability Goals n=336
24
Source: AIA Survey 2008
11%
16%
4%
10%
14%
25
Anecdotal but driving to quantitativeIPD seen as influential in accomplishing sustainability goals
Collaborative models establish stronger goalsImplementing complex sustainability strategies is best accomplished
with more stakeholders
Connections to Sustainability
26
50to50 | 2007.12.12
27
50 specific strategies to move toward carbon reduction.A how-to resource for practitioners and others.
Text, diagrams, and images.
50to50
28
agreements
29
Transitional Forms | B195, A195, A295More recognizable, familiar
Utilizes GMP contract with pre-construction services
Immediately familiar and usable within today’s environment
SPE – Full Integration | C195More provocative, unique approach
Single Purpose Entity (Limited Liability Company)
All for one and one for all
IPD Agreements – Two Approaches
30
GMP Amendment
Owner Architect Agreement
Business Terms
General Conditions
All Responsibilities of Owner, Architect and Contractor for All
Phases of Design and Construction
Owner Contractor Agreement
Business Terms
A295 Transitional IPD Forms
31
Owner
C
C C
C
A CM
SPE
SPE Contract Structure
1
1. SPE Agreement
2. SPE Member Services Agreement
2 2
3. SPE OwnerAgreement
3
4. Non-Member Agreement
32
• Structures the SPE
• Provides for SPE management
• Includes procedure for establishing Target Cost
• Contains Dispute Resolution provision
CM
O
A
Owner
Construction ManagerArchitect
SPE
SPE Agreement – C195
33
• Owner Funds SPE
• Owner Audit Rights
• Limitation of Liability, Indemnification and Waiver of Claims
• All disputes resolved under SPE dispute resolution provisionsCMA
SPE
Owner
SPE Owner Agreement – C196
34
• Services at Cost
• Incentive and Goal Achievement Comp.
• SPE has Audit Rights
• Limitation of Liability, Indemnification and Waiver of Claims
• All disputes resolved under SPE dispute resolution provisions
SPE
CMA
Owner
SPE Member Services Agreement – C196
35
• With Non-Member consultants and contractors
• Contracts for stipulated sum or GMP
C
C C
C
Owner
SPE
CMA
SPE Non-Member Agreements
36
E202: BIM Protocol Exhibit
37
Phase
UniFormat 300 Series
Level of Development
Model Element Author
Notes
38
Key Definitions
Coordination
Model Standards
Ownership
39
Model Management
40
Levels of DevelopmentLOD 100: Massing content indicative of volume, location, and orientation.
LOD 200: Generalized systems or assemblies with approximate quantities.
LOD 300: Specific assemblies accurate in terms of quantity, size, shape, location, and orientation.
LOD 400: LOD 300 with fabrication, assembly and detailing information added.
LOD 500: “Record Model”
41
Flow-down
42
Traditional Delivery
43
Integrated Project Delivery
44
Non-UniFormat Elements
45
2008
MHC SmartMarket Report2008
3xPT WhitepaperConsensus opinions about industry change
from owners, contractors, and architects
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
46
Coming soon!
On Compensation:Considerations for Teams in a Transformed Industry
Outline•Introduction
•Motivations of Team Members: Why Do We Do This•Compensation for What: Ingredients of Compensation
•Current Compensation Models•New Value Propositions
•Appendix A: Three Sample Models•Appendix B: FAQs about Compensation
47
www.aia.org/ip
www.aia.org/sustainability