Introduction: Why You Should Care About IPD…………….……………….…….5

Introduction: Why You Should Care About IPD

When I first started writing about design and construction in 1993, a new concept in project delivery gripped the industry’s attention. Its passionate supporters presented it as the next big thing, an innovation that every large and mid-sized project would someday incorporate into the delivery process.

We saw the future of project delivery and its name was partnering.

I remember thinking that the idea of bringing together all key participants in a major project at the very beginning sounded good. In theory, it would allow everyone on the project team to understand the expectations and ideas of the others, while opening communication lines and creating personal relationships.

At the same time, I wondered if partnering would ever gain widespread acceptance in an industry where time and money are of such critical importance and at such a premium. How could architects, engineers, contractors and owners— people with barely enough time to return a phone call, with schedules booked solid for weeks and months ahead— drop everything for several days to live in huts and sing "Kumbaya" around a campfire (which is how partnering’s many skeptics often described these events)?

Seventeen years later, partnering hasn’t exactly taken the construction world by storm. Do a Google search on "partnering on construction projects"; you’ll find that most of the books and articles on partnering came out a decade ago or more (or that the word is used in an entirely different context). Few people in the industry, and almost no one in small and midsized firms, have ever participated in a partnering session as we then knew it.

It is true that some clients and projects still practice partnering in various forms and to varying degrees. It is even possibly an ancestor to other collaborative planning techniques, including Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), the subject of this publication. But partnering in 2010 is no more a staple of the design and construction industry than TQM (total quality management) or BPR (business process reengineering), two other ideas that sounded good in theory.

It’s fair to say that partnering didn’t live up to the hype.

The hype is now buzzing relentlessly around IPD. It is the increasingly frequent subject of seminars and webinars, conferences and workshops, articles and books, organizations and associations. If you’re not talking about, learning about or thinking about IPD, you’re living in a figurative cave.

Just wait until architects, engineers, owners and contractors actually start using it on real projects.

You see, despite the incredible "hotness" of IPD, relatively few projects in the U.S. have actually used this delivery method. And, depending on how you define IPD (more on that later), the "few" may be even fewer.

So while IPD is currently the toast of the industry, it is a distant, mysterious concept to the vast majority of professionals working in the estimated one and a quarter million AEC companies in the United States. Some AEC firms may even be working in IPD arrangements, at least as some define the term, and not even know it.

"A few individuals and firms have used and are using IPD, but you could consider them the typical small minority of enthusiastic early adopters," says Scott Braley, a former managing principal of an ENR Top 40 firm and current principal with the AEC management consulting firm Braley Consulting & and Training (Atlanta, GA). "Only time will tell if their involvement is based solely on adventurousness and idealism, or whether they are strategic geniuses setting a new pace for the industry."

This begs the question, why write this treatise on IPD if it is possibly just another fad? Why should you, the reader, waste time learning about something that could wind up being this generation’s version of partnering?

First, it’s important to remember that not everything about partnering went the way of the Discman, Spuds McKenzie and other 90s fads. Many people credit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with originating partnering as we came to know it. And while the terminology has changed— the Corps now seems to prefer the term "Collaborative Planning" — remnants of partnering live on in some large USACE projects. They’re not alone on this, either.

Collaborative planning is a good term that strikes at the essence of both partnering and IPD, without the "touchy-feely" baggage that grew to accompany the former. In 2010, collaborative planning among project team members survives in a number of forms, including as a basis for some of IPD’s principles (e.g., collaborative innovation, mutual respect and trust, open communication).

So even if IPD eventually goes down the same path as partnering, some of its better elements may survive to help create the next industry trend. It never hurts to be ahead of the curve.

More importantly, IPD is not partnering.

Partnering and IPD both grew out of the commonsense concept that projects benefit from the people involved cooperatively considering the process and the product before creating too much of either. Both are the backlash of an industry that has unintentionally built distrust, inefficiency, and finger-pointing into the system.

A major difference between the two is that partnering addresses mainly the "softer" side of the problem, where IPD can affect many of the harder elements of a project, such as the contractual terms.

"Partnering relied heavily on relationship building and voluntary cooperation," says Braley. "While appropriate as an ideal, many participants in early partnering work sessions were less than satisfied with the involvement of facilitators who were psychologists. They would sometimes do team-building exercises— ‘you’re on a desert island and you have a paper clip, a book and a ballpoint pen…how do you get off the island?’ The exercises were supposed to teach designers and contractors how to work together, but people would argue that knowing how to work together was not the real issue. We all knew how to work together— we did it all the time."

Braley says the core issues were not really about how team members wished to conduct meetings or preferred to communicate. "The real problems— at times not adequately addressed by facilitators who did not have solid AEC backgrounds— had to do with contracts that placed blame for problems with one team participant or another. Designers and builders alike had to protect their turf, so to speak. ‘My contract says that if something goes wrong it’s my fault unless I can show that it’s your fault.’ No hypothetical exercise will fix that," he says.

Having managed projects representing nearly $2 billion of in-place construction and facilitated many sessions himself, Braley says there is great value in the partnering process if the facilitator is knowledgeable in the AEC industry in general, and project delivery in particular. He adds that partnering in some form is essential for IPD projects, but that project participants must forthrightly tackle the thorny issue of how to resolve the sometimes-inherent conflict among owner, designer and contractor, as well as contractual risk/reward sharing.

IPD attempts to bridge this gap.

So why care about IPD? Because the people saying that IPD is the future of project delivery might just be right. At minimum, it is likely to be at least part of that future.

Ray Kogan, president of management consulting firm Kogan and Company (Arlington, VA), said in last fall’s PSMJ’s 2010 AEC Firm U.S. Market Sector Forecast, "I don’t think IPD is going to sweep the nation in the next 12 to 14 months. But it’s very important for design firms to be knowledgeable about the concepts of IPD. Sooner or later, they’re likely to be faced with the potential of doing a project in the system, and it’s better that they know about it beforehand. I’d hate for an A/E firm to be blindsided by a client or contractor who is more knowledgeable about it than they are."

Braley agrees. "If you’re a mid-sized or large firm, there is virtually a 100 percent probability that someone is going to ask in the next few years if you’re familiar with IPD and can you do it," he says. "It was the same way with design-build 20 years ago and program management when it emerged on the AEC scene. Firm leaders may do a cost-benefit analysis and elect not to pursue or engage in IPD projects. However, they at least need to know the basics and subtleties of IPD so they can make an informed decision."

And consider this: when you do learn about IPD, you may become a fan. You may look at IPD and see an opportunity you hadn’t thought of before.

Or you might ultimately think it’s all bunk…but at least your decision to sit on the sidelines would be made by someone knowing the rules of the game.

This publication’s goal is to provide the information basics for those who are curious about IPD, but who know little about it. It also aspires to offer new insight to industry professionals familiar with IPD, and who may or may not advocate its growth.

Most importantly, the overriding charge of this PSMJ AEC Issue Brief is to offer an entirely unbiased, agenda-free perspective on IPD and the role it plays— and is likely to play— across the wide AEC industry.

This well-received brief already has industry leaders buzzing about it:

“As a practice that embraced BIM a number of years ago as a tool that supported collaboration, ADD Inc can vouch for some of the benefits sited in the brief. This brief is by far the best summary of the IPD / BIM existing condition that I have read to date and draws clear conclusions about the success formulas as well as pitfalls as the traditional adversarial delivery models evolve into something not only more powerful and valuable, but enjoyable!”

-- Frederick A. Kramer, AIA, President, ADD Inc

"PSMJ and Jerome Guerra have created a must read for the AEC industry…a well written overview of Integrated Project Delivery including the history of IPD, case studies, contracting methods, risk allocation, and thoughts about the future of one of the most talked about, but least understood trends in the industry."

-- Craig Galati, Principal, Lucchesi Galati

"This document is the first I have read that delves into the history of the idea and how it has come to be promoted within the US building market. The paper takes a realistic view of its promise without seeming like just another sales pitch. By investing the time to research the process from all sides, Jerome Guerra provides the practitioner an excellent resource from which to learn more, understand the applicability of the IPD process to their practice, and build the base from which to potentially engage in this process."

-- David H. Barkin AIA, LEED AP, Principal, Director, JCJARCHITECTURE