Search results

Integrated project delivery (IPD) project that does not use multiparty agreement is identified as IPD-ish. The use of IPD-ish arrangement by incorporating integration practices in conventional contract can be viewed as the part of the adoption process of IPD. Moreover, inappropriate integration practices invite new forms of risks and the absence of multiparty agreement adds to the challenges of risk management in IPD-ish projects. This study discusses such challenges and proposes the use of joint risk management to address the potential pitfalls in IPD-ish arrangement.

A mixed research method was applied. First, the criticality of IPD-ish general and integration-specific risks was examined through a survey. Second, a real IPD-ish project was used to exemplify the use of joint risk management (JRM) to manage IPD-ish risks.

Two types of risks, namely integration risks (IRs) and general risks (GRs), are identified in IPD-ish projects. Two major findings for the IRs: (1) the most critical IRs are related to unbalanced incentivization and inefficient multidisciplinary teams; and (2) only team formation related pre-contract JRM strategies affect IRs. As for the GRs, the most critical ones are associated with design issues and can be effectively mitigated by post-contract JRM.

Using IPD-ish arrangement is an inevitable part of implementation of full IPD. This happens as many change-averse owners would like to test the integration principles using a conventional contract that they are familiar with. In fact, success in IPD-ish would pave the path for further adoption of IPD. This study offers insight into categorization of risks in IPD-ish projects. Appropriate use of post-contract and organization related pre-contract JRM would improve the chance of teasing out the values of IPD through IPD-ish arrangements. Care should be taken to introduce some contracting integration initiatives, such as risk/reward sharing incentive.

Megaproject performance measurement (MPM) has received great attention in the project management community, but it primarily focused on the design of performance measures or frameworks. Yet, whether MPM utilization can improve megaproject performance and how project actors use MPM to improve megaproject performance is less well understood. This study aims to investigate whether and how the use of MPM can contribute to better megaproject performance.

Through the lens of the lever of control, this study conceptualizes MPM utilization as diagnostic use and interactive use. A holistic research model and related hypotheses integrating MPM use, project complexity and megaproject performance were established. The model was validated using a partial square-structural equation modeling method.

Based on 214-megaproject data collected through a questionnaire survey in China, the results show positive effects of diagnostic use and interactive use on megaproject performance. Both, however, have substitutional interaction effects. The moderating results suggest that the higher project complexity weakens the positive effects of MPM utilization on megaproject performance.

This study advances megaprojects performance measurement and management literature by validating the value of MPM utilization on performance. It also presents practical implications for project managers to improve performance by appropriate MPM utilization.

Compared with traditional approaches, integrated project delivery (IPD) improves project performance by enhancing integration. To adopt IPD, however, existing practices need to be changed, which creates barriers to implementation. This study aims to identify the barriers to IPD practices in China and Singapore, whose practitioners show different types and levels of integration experience.

A questionnaire survey was administered to two groups of respondents: Chinese and Singaporean. The data were analyzed using three nonparametric techniques, including Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test, and Spearman rank correlation.

(1) Of 39 possible barriers, 36 were consistently felt by both Chinese and Singaporean practitioners with different backgrounds; (2) The Chinese group perceived more issues to be significant barriers than the Singaporean group; (3) The Singaporean group had more experience than the Chinese group in performing integration in five areas. This lessens some barriers to adopting IPD practices.

This study is important because it uncovers barriers to the effective implementation of IPD and shows the importance of certain types and levels of integration experience in overcoming these barriers. The results will be useful to practitioners planning to adopt IPD in China or Singapore.