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

References

• American Institute of Architects [AIA]. 1995. AIA document D101—1995 methods of calculating areas and volumes of buildings. [Accessed 2020 May 9]:[2 p.]. https://www.aiacontracts.org/resources/64251-d1011995-methods-of-calculating-areas-and-volumes-of-buildings?tab=library.
   Google Scholar
• American Institute of Architects [AIA] & AIA California Council. 2007. Integrated project delivery: a guide. [Accessed 2020 May 9]:[62 p.]. http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS077630.
   Google Scholar
• American Institute of Architects & AIA California Council. [AIA]. 2010. Integrated project delivery: case studies. [Accessed 2020 May 9]:[62 p.]. http://aiacc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/IPD_CaseStudies_FINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• American Institute of Architects [AIA] & AIA Minnesota. 2012. IPD case studies. [Accessed 2020 May 9]:[267 p.]. https://rp.design.umn.edu/resources/documents/IPD-Case-Study-Matrix-2012_corrected02.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ashcraft H. 2011. Negotiating an integrated project delivery agreement. Constr Law. 31(3):17–50.
   Google Scholar
• Bilbo D, Bigelow B, Escamilla E, Lockwood C. 2015. Comparison of construction manager at risk and integrated project delivery performance on healthcare projects: a comparative case study. Int J Constr Ed Res. 11(1):40–53.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan MD. 2011. Integrated project delivery: a normative model for value creation in complex military medical projects [dissertation]. Urbana-Champaign (IL): University of Illinois. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/26027.
   Google Scholar
• Cho S, Ballard G. 2011. Last planner and integrated project delivery. Lean Constr J. 2011:67–78. https://www.leanconstruction.org/media/docs/lcj/2011/LCJ_11_sp5.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Desanctis G, Poole MS. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Org Sci. 5(2):121–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixit V. 2020. Risk assessment of different sourcing contract scenarios in project procurement. Int J Constr. Manage.
   Google Scholar
• El-Adaway IH. 2010. Integrated project delivery case study: guidelines for drafting partnering contract. J Leg Aff Dispute Resolut Eng Constr. 2(4):248–252.
   Google Scholar
• El Asmar M, Hanna A, Loh W. 2013. Quantifying performance for the integrated project delivery system as compared to established delivery systems. J Constr Eng Manage. 139(11):04013012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enshassi A, Kumaraswamy M, Al-Najjar J. 2010. Significant factors causing time and cost overruns in construction projects in the Gaza strip: contractors’ perspective. Int J Constr Manage. 10(1):35–60.
   Google Scholar
• Forgues D, Koskela L. 2009. The influence of a collaborative procurement approach using integrated design in construction on project team performance. Int J Manage Projects Bus 2(3):370–385.
   Google Scholar
• Gallaher M, O’Connor A, Dettbarn J, Gilday L. 2004. Cost analysis of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital facilities industry. NIST publication No. GCR 04-867. National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST). https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/gcr/2004/NIST.GCR.04-867.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ghassemi R, Becerik-Gerber B. 2011. Transitioning to integrated project delivery: potential barriers and lessons learned. Lean Const J. 2011:32–52. https://www.leanconstruction.org/media/docs/lcj/2011/LCJ_11_sp3.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens A. 1984. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkley and Los Angeles (CA): University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna A. 2016. Benchmark performance metrics for integrated project delivery. J Constr Eng Manage. 142(9):04016040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilozor B, Kelly D. 2012. Building information modeling and integrated project delivery in the commercial construction industry: a conceptual study. EPPM J. 2(1):23–36. DOI: 10.32738/JEPPM.201201.0004.
   Google Scholar
• Integrated Project Delivery, Inc. 2005. U.S. Trademark No. 2971009. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly D, Ilozor B. 2013. A pilot causal comparative study of project performance metrics: examining building information modeling (BIM) and integrated project delivery (IPD). Built Human Environ Rev. 6:82–106.
   Google Scholar
• Konchar M, Sanvido V. 1998. Comparison of U.S. project delivery systems. J Constr Eng Manage. 124(6):435–444.).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leedy PD, Ormrod JE. 2010. Practical research planning and design. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Education, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtig W. 2005. Sutter Health: developing a contracting model to support lean project delivery. Lean Constr J. 2(1):105–112. https://www.leanconstruction.org/media/docs/lcj/V2_N1/LCJ_05_008.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtig W. 2006. The integrated agreement for lean project delivery. Constr Law 26(3):1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Markiz N, Jrade A. 2019. Integrating an expert system with BrIMS, cost estimation, and linear scheduling at conceptual design stage of bridge projects. Int J Constr Manage. 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1661572.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews O, Howell G. 2005. Integrated project delivery an example of relational contracting. Lean Constr J. 2(1):46–61. https://www.leanconstruction.org/media/docs/lcj/V2_N1/LCJ_05_003.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Muneeswaran G, Manoharan P, Awoyera P, Adesina A. 2020. A statistical approach to assess the schedule delays and risks in Indian construction industry. Int J Constr Manage. 20(5):450–461.
   Google Scholar
• Muya M, Kaliba C, Sichombo B, Shakantu W. 2013. Cost escalation, schedule overruns and quality shortfalls on construction projects: the case of Zambia. Int J Constr Manage. 13(1):53–68.
   Google Scholar
• Najjar M, Figueiredo K, Evangelista A, Hammad A, Tam V, Haddad A. 2019. Life cycle assessment methodology integrated with BIM as a decision-making tool at early-stages of building design. Int J Constr Manage. 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1637098.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of State Facilities Administrators [NASFA], [COAA] Construction Owners Association of American, [APPA] Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, [AGC] Associated General Contractors, & [AIA] American Institute of Architects. 2010. Integrated project delivery for public and private owners. [Accessed 2020 May 9]:[45 p.]. https://coaa.org/Documents/Owner-Resources/Industry-Resources/IPD-for-Public-and-Private-Owners.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen P, Akhavian R. 2019. Synergistic effect of integrated project delivery, lean construction, and building information modeling on project performance measures: a quantitative and qualitative analysis. Adv Civil Eng. 2019:1–9. ID 1267048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberg E, Valentine AL, Stabel JM. 1910. Screw thread cutting. 3rd ed. New York (NY): The Industrial Press.
   Google Scholar
• Post N. 2007. Sutter Health unlocks the door to a new process. Eng News Rec. 259(19):80–84. https://www.enr.com/articles/29326-sutter-health-unlocks-the-door-to-a-new-process.
   Google Scholar
• Rehman M, Thaheem M, Nasir A, Khan K. 2020. Project schedule risk management through building information modeling. Int J Constr Manage. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1728606.
   Google Scholar
• Rooke J, Seymour D, Fellow R. 2004. Planning for claims, an ethnography of industry culture. Constr Manage Econ. 22(6):655–662.
   Google Scholar
• Simpeh E, Ndihokubwayo R, Love P, Thwala W. 2015. A rework probability model: a quantitative assessment of rework occurrence in construction projects. Int J Constr Manage. 15(2):109–116.
   Google Scholar
• Teicholz P. 2013. Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look). AEC Bytes Viewpoints. http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2013/issue_67.html.
   Google Scholar