Ipd Convention 2009 Lessons Learned Presentation Final

  • 859 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
859
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • IPD Definition Task Group sTUART
  • IPD Definition Task Group S
  • IPD Definition Task Group S
  • IPD Definition Task Group J J will show Sketchup graphic here
  • IPD Definition Task Group STUART
  • IPD Definition Task Group Z
  • IPD Definition Task Group Z
  • IPD Definition Task Group Z
  • IPD Definition Task Group Z
  • IPD Definition Task Group Z

Transcript

  • 1. Lessons learned from applied Integrated Project Delivery Identify, explore and understand IPD from real projects Session ID: F32
  • 2.
    • This presentation is protected by US and International Copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation without written permission of the speaker is prohibited.
  • 3.
    • This program is registered with the AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to constitute approval, sponsorship or endorsement by the AIA of any method, product, service, enterprise or organization. The statements expressed by speakers, panelists, and other participants reflect their own views and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of The American Institute of Architects or of AIA components, or those of their respective officers, directors, members, employees, or other organizations, groups or individuals associated with them. Questions related to specific products and services may be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.
  • 4. Learning Objectives
        • Assess the value of an IPD process through discussion of case studies and industry forces
        • Recognize how traditional design/construction processes can be transformed into an IPD system for value-based services
        • Evaluate technological tools that support collaboration internally within an architectural practice and across the overall project building team (Owner, Designer, Engineer, Builder, Trades)
  • 5. AIACC Lessons Learned Symposium
    • Purpose: cross section of doers to get feedback on what’s working-what is not-what would they do differently.
      • Attendees:
          • Owners-2
          • Architects-5
          • Engineers-1
          • General Contractors-8
          • Trades-2
  • 6. Integrated Project Delivery
  • 7. Integrated Project Delivery AIACC Definitions Document
    • Definition
    • IPD is a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and construction.
  • 8. Integrated Project Delivery AIACC Definitions Document
    • Definition
    • IPD principles can be applied to a variety of contractual arrangements and IPD teams will usually include members well beyond the basic triad of owner, architect, and contractor. At a minimum, though, an integrated project includes highly effective collaboration between the owner, the architect, and the general contractor ultimately responsible for construction of the project, from early design through project handover.
  • 9. Integration Predesign Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents Agency Permit / Bidding Construction Closeout WHO REALIZE HOW WHAT Traditional WHAT WHO HOW Agency Owner Architect Engineers GC Subs Conceptual-ization Criteria Design Detailed Design Implementation Documents Agency Coord / Final Buyout Construction Closeout REALIZE
    • Define the processes, structure and metrics up front!
    Agency Owner Architect Engineers GC Subs Integrated
  • 10. IPD Goal- OPTIMAL - Results
    • Project Dials/metrics:
      • Cost within budget
      • Schedule-on time completion
      • Quality / Performance
      • Design
      • Documentation
      • Sustainability
      • Risk/claims
      • Profitability
    Under Over Quality Quantity
  • 11. Agenda
    • Value Proposition
    • Determining and Managing the Project Budget
    • Contracts
    • Using Technology
    • Transformation / Summary
  • 12.
    • What represents the
    • Value Proposition
    1
  • 13. Value Proposition
    • “ When you look at other industries where an entity has control of the design, the fabrication, the financing, the marketing of a product like the airline industry or like Apple-look what they’ve done as a computer company, versus other PC type companies”
    • Extraordinary results from Collaboration AND Integration
  • 14. Value Proposition - Collaboration
    • Best for the Project-Best for the Firms
    • “…… do what you know ….even if it costs more because it protects you…why on earth did you do that….because we’ve been sued five years ago for not doing it…so now we do it on every project whether it makes sense or not…”
  • 15. Value Proposition of Collaboration From the Construction Industry Institute – UT Austin
    • Total Project Cost – 10% Reduction
          • Construction Administration – 24% Reduction
          • Engineering - $10/hr Reduction
          • Value Engineering – 337% increase
          • Profitability – 25% increase
    • Number of claims – 83% Reduction
    • Projects with claims – 68% Reduction
  • 16. Different – Disciplines Vs. Business Models Project Entity Virtual Oganization C C C C Owner Designer Constructor Project D D D D C C C C Owner Designer Constructor Project D D D D
  • 17. Collaboration and Integration
  • 18. Collaboration and Integration
    • The big room Work group-leadership slide-has the work groups in blue at the bottom
  • 19. Project Responsibility Matrix
  • 20. Stanford’s Center of Integrated Facilities Engineering (CIFE) Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
  • 21.
    • Efficiency-Shop drawings, pre-fabrication opportunities tested and decided in CD phase.
    • Market forces-Team process quicker to react-respond to changes in commodities, labor availability.
      • Innovation-Bigger opportunity to introduce/evaluate new technologies
    Value Proposition
  • 22.
    • How to
    • Determine and Managing the Project Budget
    2
  • 23.
    • A project budget has many variables that include but are not limited to:
    • Vision
    • Function
    • Quality
    • Master plan
    Determining and Managing the budget
    • Internal
    • External
    • Operational
    • Funding
  • 24.
    • Mission – Purpose of the project
    • Build a transforming hospital complex for children, women and cancer patients to advance caring, healing, teaching and discovering.
    • Core Values – Owner, Designer, Constructor Agree with:
    • . Can-Do – Collaboration - Make A Difference Enjoyment
    • Givens – Owner, Designer, Constructor comply with
    • Budget
    • Funding vs. Philanthropy
    • Schedule
    Project Vision - Balancing
  • 25.
    • Programmatic Functionality – What the client needs to support the business case
      • Normally not part of the cost reduction strategies
      • Defines what the project needs to be
    • Quality – Owner/Designer/Constructor agree with:
    • . Owner’s need for quality, performance and life-cycle functionality
    • Designer’s recommendation based on their best practices, cost basis and unique need of the project
    • Constructor confirms need and recommendation with cost confirmation, availability and execution
    Programmatic Functionality / Quality
  • 26.
    • Designer’s need to understand the owner’s overall cash flow to manage their project and their fee
    • Trusted Advisor / Fundraising
    • Internal Organization
    • Project canceling
    • future projects
    • Re-draw at your cost
    Project needs all available funds Cancels future work Your Project Your Worry
  • 27. Historical data / trends informs a budget Were living in interesting times
  • 28. Benchmarking - Informing a budget
  • 29. Systems Benchmarking - Informing a budget BUILDING SYSTEMS COST DATA / COST RANGES $/SF COMMENTS   Type 1 Type 2   Fire Protection 15/sf to 21/sf 4/sf to 8/sf Increased density of rooms and full height walls drive up number of heads. Seismic bracing requirements. Mechanical 125/sf to 175/sf 30/sf to 60/sf Increased number of zones because of patient care requirements. Increased air changes drives larger HVAC units, increased filtering & controls. Stricter exiting and occupancy requirements increase fire smoke dampers quantity and ductwork routing. Plumbing 70/sf to 90/sf 10/sf to 18/sf Certified med gas system is required through out the hospital. Hospitals have 1 fixture per 350sf vs 1 fixture per 1500sf for an office Electrical 125/sf to 150/sf 30/sf to 45/sf Electrical power system separated into 3 systems, normal, emergency & equipment this triples the distribution cost. IT cabling requirements increased to support patient information requirements. Increased number of electrical system make coordination and installation more difficult. b
  • 30. Cost Target Driven Summary
  • 31.
    • A budget is a target whose sub‐targets will fluctuate to respond to the development of the project and realities of the market
    Using Dials to land on the Budget Sub- System Aggregate System
  • 32.
    • Project stakeholders (the designer and constructor) input is most valuable when the budget is least defined
    • We need to be more pro-active in defining and shaping the budget instead of reacting to it.
    The Wisdom of Crowds – 1+1+1 = 10
  • 33. Open Book - Supports continuous confirmation Spend as little as possible The project can not go like the last one Were going to shop this around I want this to be my gift to the city Let’s invest in doing things once and right We want no one else to be able to do this
  • 34.
    • The challenge to do what others say can not be done, motivates
    • Barriers tend to produce creative results
    • Camaraderie is created when challenges are overcome together
    • Financial reward is an incentive, the relationships developed on project lead to future work
    Doing a good job is motivation to succeed
  • 35.
    • Determining
    • Historical data coupled with trends informs a project budget but should not set it
    • The need to invite project stakeholders (the designer and constructor) is most valuable when the budget is least defined
    • Managing
    • An open book or transparent process allows for all the stakeholders to have input and confirming the project direction
    • A budget is a target whose sub‐targets will fluctuate to respond to the development of the project and realities of the market
    • Doing a good job is motivation by itself
    Lessons Learned on Budget
  • 36.
    • What does the contract look like?
    • Project Set-Up
    3
  • 37.
    • What contract language encourages collaboration, and what discourages it?
    • The Two Most Important Elements:
    • Multi-Party Agreement
    • Shared Risk/Reward Pool
    Encouraging Collaboration
  • 38. Multi-Party Agreement
          • Traditional
    Cons. B101 Sub. Owner Contractor Architect A201 C401 A401
  • 39. Multi-Party Agreement
          • Separate Contracts + Joining Agreement
          • “ IPD-ish”
    Cons. B195 Sub. Owner Contractor Architect A195 A295 C401 A401 B101 A201
  • 40. Multi-Party Agreement
          • Everyone Signs the Same Agreement
          • Full IPD
    Owner Sub. Cons. AIA C195 ConsensusDocs 300 Sub. Contractor Cons. Architect
  • 41.
        • Why?
        • Multiple two-party agreements mean no direct relationship between designers and constructors.
        • Easier to align goals
    Multi-Party Agreement Owner Contractor Architect Owner Contractor Architect
  • 42. Shared Risk/Reward Guaranteed At Risk Corporate Overhead Profit Limb 2 Limb 3 Pain Gain 0 Direct Project Costs Project- specific Overhead Limb 1 $
  • 43.
        • “ Contracts that strictly focus on the penalties really discourage collaboration. ”
          • They induce participants to include contingencies, which drives up price.
          • They don’t promote relationships, which can be important in solving problems.
          • Without the potential for reward, there is no incentive to innovate, i.e., no incentive to do anything other than what’s safe.
    Shared Risk/Reward
  • 44.
        • Determining the pool
        • Percentage of profit
        • Same percent for everyone?
        • Requires agreement on what is profit vs. cost of the work or overhead
        • Must be big enough to be significant
    Shared Risk/Reward
  • 45.
        • Distributing the pool
          • Setting Targets
            • Remember the dials
            • Incentivizing soft goals
    Shared Risk/Reward Performance Sustainability Design Quality Schedule
  • 46.
        • Distributing the pool
          • Setting Targets
            • Remember the dials
            • Incentivizing soft goals
            • Timing – when do you set targets?
    Shared Risk/Reward
        • ConsensusDocs 300 End of Detailed Design
        • AIA C195 End of Criteria Design
        • End of Conceptualization?
  • 47.
        • Distributing the pool
          • Sink or swim together
    Shared Risk/Reward
  • 48. Moving the work Upstream
        • Redistribution of Design Fees
  • 49.
      • “ We can contract something to death, but what’s important is who you want to work with"
  • 50.
    • How do we manage:
    • Using Technology
    4
  • 51.
    • Ownership and Specification of the Model
    • Three Key Questions:
    • How can the model(s) be used?
    • Who owns the model(s)?
    • In case of conflict, what controls?
    Managing BIM
  • 52.
        • 7 Use Cases
    How can the model(s) be used?
  • 53.
        • 7 Use Cases
    How can the model(s) be used? Designer’s Model Builder’s Model
  • 54.
        • Joint work results in joint ownership.
        • When models are combined, the agreement should identify who owns what part.
        • The agreement should license specific uses by others.
    Who owns the model(s)?
  • 55.
        • With multiple models being developed simultaneously, which is the “source of truth”?
        • This can vary between different elements or systems.
          • Example – Structure vs. Mechanical
        • Can also vary over time.
          • Example – handoff from architect to engineer to subcontractor
    In case of conflict, what controls?
  • 56.
        • Level of Detail
        • Model Component Author
    Model Progression Spec/AIA E202
  • 57. Model Progression Spec/AIA E202
        • Level of Detail
  • 58.
        • Level of Detail
        • Model Component Author
    Model Progression Spec/AIA E202
  • 59.
        • Needed Development
        • Ability to flag important dimensions (“clear”, “minimum”, etc.)
        • Ability to denote tolerances
    Model Functionality
  • 60.
    • Transformation / Summary
    5
  • 61. Stanford’s Center of Integrated Facilities Engineering (CIFE) Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
    • Organizational Hierarchy - Success Targe t - Flat : One facilitator, no managers; culture of working with minimal management supervision
    • Topology of Stakeholder Social Network - Success Targe t - Pooled : - Collocation; Projection screens; sidebar culture
    • Design subtask duration - Success Targe t - Less than 10 minutes - Careful activity decomposition into subtasks, training of designers, and design of appropriately supportive software design and analysis applications
  • 62. Lessons Learned for IPD – A personal perspective
    • How do we change?
    • Preparation for an IPD project
    • Modeling first / Documenting second
    • Practice-Shift
  • 63. Remember that: Integrated Project Delivery is optimized by:
    • Knowing what your Team Selection Criteria is
    • Work out the details
      • Metrics
      • Decision process
      • Cost Targeting/budget management process
      • Systems
    • Provide for Education/Training
    • Trust your fellow stakeholder
    • Commit yourself for success
  • 64. THANK YOU
    • For more information
      • www.aia.org/ipdg
      • www.aiacontracdocuments.org
      • www.ipd-ca.net
  • 65. Speakers
      • Jim Bedrick
      • [email_address]
      • Stuart Eckblad - [email_address]
      • Zigmund Rubel
      • [email_address]