Feasibility of implementing IPD approach for infrastructure projects in developing countries

Alternative project delivery approaches have been proposed to overcome the inefficiencies of conventional delivery methods such as design-bid-build. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) has recently emerged as a feasible substitute to traditional project delivery approaches. Despite widespread awareness of the benefits of IPD in integration with information and communication technology (ICT) to enhance the delivery of construction projects, IPD implementation has so far been sluggish in developing countries such as India. The feasibility of implementing IPD approach and applying its principles is investigated in this study. It assesses the maturity of delivery techniques, and the potential benefits and limitations of using IPD for infrastructure projects in developing countries, using India as a case study. This study has been carried out using an in-depth investigation of the literature in combination with a qualitative method involving interviews with ten highly experienced BIM professionals from the Indian AEC sector. The findings of this study have revealed that adopting integrated project delivery while leveraging the BIM process in conjunction with ICT has the potential to effectively deliver mega infrastructure projects in developing countries. The resistance to change, lack of experience and skills, and lack of awareness among project owners are recognized as the primary obstacles to IPD adoption. The main benefits for practice following adoption could include enhanced project delivery, more effective coordination among stakeholders, and greater transparency with cost and time savings through all stages of the project. It is recommended that the regulatory bodies establish governing standards and frameworks, amend regulations to accept IPD concepts, and upskill the workforce through training and knowledge transfer for its successful adoption. One novel aspect of this study may be recognized since most previous research has focused on limitations, benefits, and adoption frameworks for IPD whereas there has been no definitive study on the practicality of IPD combined with BIM and the use of ICT for successful infrastructure project delivery in developing countries. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by serving as an exemplary paper for future studies on the adoption of BIM and ICT approaches such as cloud computing, blockchain, IoT, and mixed realities to deliver projects with integrated project delivery. Furthermore, it provides a deeper understanding of the future of this delivery approach in developing nations.

Constructability Reviews Utilization Practices for Traditional and Alternative Project Delivery Methods Across State Transportation Agencies

State Transportation Agencies (STAs) recognized that to enhance the quality of construction documents, a review process must be incorporated into project planning, design, and procurement to evaluate projects for constructability. The benefits promised by constructability reviews (CRs) encouraged STAs to adopt it as part of their operations. This approach soon evolved into a structured process, recognized by researchers and practitioners as, the constructability review process (CRP). A significant component to the CRP success is to involve experienced construction personnel in CRs during the design phase; a major limitation of the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) delivery method. To overcome this limitation, more emphasis is being placed towards alternative project delivery methods (APDMs). As such, design–build (DB) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) are among the APDMs most utilized by STAs to deliver transportation projects. Although extensive research has investigated CRs under DBB projects, research on CRs implementation under APDMs is remarkably absent. This study examines CRs utilization and staffing practices adopted by STAs across DBB, DB, and CM/GC projects. The results of this study were drawn utilizing data collected through a national survey questionnaire and interviews with selected STAs. The study found that CRs are initiated and implemented at proportionally similar phases across DBB, DB, and CM/GC projects. Investigation of staffing needs revealed that although the agency holds the executive role in implementation of CRs on DBB projects, their role shifts on DB projects to become more administrative. The agency continues to be involved in CRs under CM/GC projects, along with their allocated design consultant, in conjunction with the GC. The results of this study are anticipated to provide STAs with guidance for CRs utilization on DBB, DB and CM/GC projects.

Transition from traditional to alternative project delivery methods in water and wastewater project: executive decision-makers' perspective

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine the barriers and constraints executive decision-makers have to face during the delivery method selection stage of water and wastewater projects using alternative project delivery (APD) methods, e.g. design-build (DB), design-build-operate (DBO) and construction management-at-risk (CMAR).Design/methodology/approachStructured interviews were conducted with 18 executive decision-makers from public agencies to identify the reasons for transitioning to APD from the design-bid-build (DBB) method. Respondents were also asked about the major obstacles they faced during the decision-making process, as well as key positive and negative factors in using APD methods. The executive decision-makers were also asked about their lessons learned during this process. In addition, this study collected key steps in making APD water and wastewater projects successful. All of the findings from the interview phase were validated by seven public agency executive decision-makers of water and wastewater industries.FindingsOne major study finding was that executive decision-makers chose the APD method because it provided cost and schedule benefits and the owner could also choose the designer or builder based on qualifications. The study also found that the main obstacles executive decision-makers faced were: (1) difficulty in implementing APD methods because they do not follow the low-bid process, (2) reluctance to use DB/CMAR because of the status quo and (3) unfamiliarity of city councils/elected commissions with the DB/CMAR process. The validation survey found that most findings from the initial phase of interviews were confirmed by the executives who took part in validation phase.Research limitations/implicationsThe major limitation of this research is the small sample size. As the executive decision-makers are very hard to reach for interviews, the authors failed to get interviews from a large number of them, despite repeated efforts made by the authors. Another limitation of this study is that the authors contacted most of the executive decision-makers listed in the WDBC list. These executive decision-makers worked for public agencies and, therefore, the views from private agencies could not be included in this research. The authors understand that the validation of the study findings is very important. However, due to the scope and limited time available for the research, the authors could not validate the findings of this study with other public agencies.Practical implicationsSelecting APD methods instead of DBB methods in water and wastewater projects for public agencies is a crucial issue during the project planning phase. Agencies' executive decision-makers need to understand the advantages and disadvantages of APD methods, along with the transition process in order to smoothly deliver projects. The findings of this study will assist public agency executive decision-makers to mitigate risks, overcome obstacles and become more educated about the APD method process, so that these projects can be successfully delivered within budget and on time.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge by identifying lessons learned related to various APD method issues, which can be utilized by municipal executive decision-makers to successfully complete future APD projects.

Post-Disaster Infrastructure Delivery for Resilience

As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of disasters and associated infrastructure damage, Alternative Project Delivery Methods are well positioned to enable innovative contracting and partnering methods for designing and delivering adaptation solutions that are more time- and cost-effective. However, where conventional “build-back-as-before” post-disaster reconstruction occurs, communities remain vulnerable to future disasters of similar or greater magnitude. In this conceptual paper, we draw on a variety of literature and emergent practices to present how such alternative delivery methods of reconstruction projects can systematically integrate “build-back-better” and introduce more resilient infrastructure outcomes. Considering existing knowledge regarding infrastructure resilience, post-disaster reconstruction and project delivery methods, we consider the resilience regimes of rebound, robustness, graceful extensibility, and sustained adaptability to present the potential for alternative project delivery methods to improve the agility and flexibility of infrastructure against future climate-related and other hazards. We discuss the criticality of continued pursuit of stakeholder engagement to support further improvements to project delivery methods, enabling new opportunities for engaging with a broader set of stakeholders, and for stakeholders to contribute new knowledge and insights to the design process. We conclude the significant potential for such methods to enable resilient infrastructure outcomes, through prioritizing resilience alongside time and cost. We also present a visual schematic in the form of a framework for enabling post-disaster infrastructure delivery for resilience outcomes, across different scales and timeframes of reconstruction. The findings have immediate implications for agencies managing disaster recovery efforts, offering decision-support for improving the adaptive capacity of infrastructure, the services they deliver, and capacities of the communities that rely on them.

Best practices of organizational change for adopting alternative project delivery methods in the AEC industry

PurposeAlthough numerous studies have examined alternative project delivery methods (APDMs), most of these studies have focused on the relationship between these methods and improved project performance. Limited research identifies how to successfully add these methods within architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) organizations. The purpose of this paper is to identifying organizational change management (OCM) practices that, when effectively executed, lead to increased success rates of adopting APDMs in owner AEC organizations.Design/methodology/approachSeven OCM practices were identified through a comprehensive literature review. Then, through a survey of 140 individuals at 98 AEC organizations, the relationships between OCM practices and organizational adoption of APDMs were established.FindingsThe findings indicate that OCM practices with the strongest relationship to successful APDM adoption are realistic timeframe, effective change agents, workloads adjustments, senior-leadership commitment and sufficient change-related training.Practical implicationsAdopting APDMs can be extremely difficult and requires significant organizational change efforts to ensure the change is a success. Organizations that are implementing APDMs for the first time should consider applying the OCM practices that this study identifies as most related to successful APDM adoption.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by identifying the OCM practices that are most significantly associated with successfully adopting APDMs.

Design information release under alternative design-construction modes

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyse the impact of schedule compression under alternative project delivery methods (APDMs) on the design information release (DIR). The objectives are to understand the dynamics and the respective implications of the DIR under alternative design-construction (DC) modes (e.g. fast-track).Design/methodology/approachThe methodology of work includes: (1) identifying the relevant factors that may impact the release of design deliverables under APDMs, (2) representing the selected APDMs with corresponding DC sequencing modes and (3) conceptualizing the possible alternative dynamics of the released deliverables.FindingsThe findings reveal that in contrast to the traditional one-time packaging of design deliverables, multiple DIR – with less certainty on their scope, timing, frequency and coordination quality – are released under alternative DC modes. This uncertainty mainly emanates from the deduced impact of the identified factors (e.g. DC overlapping intensity and degree of pressure by the builder) on the design deliverables dynamics.Practical implicationsThis study can be of benefit to Architecture/Engineering (A/E) professionals as well as to project owners in better planning for their roles and responsibilities under each of the identified modes, as it helps raising their awareness on new issues brought about by APDMs. For instance, the presented analysis indirectly informs designers, design review professionals and project owners about a potentially increased liability exposure emanating from the reduced certainty on the DIR's coordination quality. Moreover, it informs design managers about the need for a design team's re-formation and/or re-structuring (i.e. of the involved staff) in order to accommodate for the hypothesized DIR dynamics.Originality/valueThis work offers a novel study that theorizes the impact of time-reduction-related factors, under alternative DC modes, on the release of design deliverables.