It might be a stretch to say everything, but it is a fact that industry behaviors have changed dramatically. Specific and significant events have led to changes in the design and construction process.

1. What has Changed during the Aftershock in Commercial Construction Between 2008 & 2014?
It might be a stretch to say everything, but it is a fact that industry behaviors have changed dramatically.
Specific and significant events have led to changes in the design and construction process. In addition,
the majority of construction spending in the architectural market has shifted greatly. In 2008 the vast
majority of architectural construction was new square footage, conversely, in 2011 The American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) published that roughly 80
percent of construction spending was renovation of existing buildings, and that new square footage
represented the remaining 20 percent. This resulted in architectural unemployment rising to as much as
30 plus percent. There were also significant advances in the creation and use of new “Building
Information Modeling” software, such as Revit and others.
In the wake of these and other events, we realized a significant and growing change in how owners,
architects, and contractors began to interact on new projects and large renovations, especially on
institutional, commercial, and healthcare structures. Prior to the recession of 2008, most projects were
still following the traditional “Design – Bid – Build” process. Given much in part to the shortage of cash,
a tight credit market, and accelerating BIM usage by the general contractor, owners wanted projects
built faster, better, and for much less money. To accommodate this, design build is giving way to a more
collaborative process, “Integrated Project Delivery or IPD”. Below are graphs illustrating the legacy and
still practiced, Design – Bid – Build process and the quickly evolving method of Integrated Project
Delivery (IPD).

2. Above, in the legacy process things progress at a much slower pace and the lack of a peer to peer
communication flow allows for more clash in the design process and loose cost control.
Conversely, in a survey about IPD the American Institute of Architects, overall, participants identified
cost predictability (70 percent), schedule predictability (62 percent), construction efficiency (59
percent), and risk management (55 percent) as motivations likely to be satisfied through the IPD
collaborative delivery methods. These motivations are often touted in association with IPD, which is
characterized, in part, by shared financial risk and reward, liability waivers, fiscal transparency, and early
involvement of key participants. Making Integrated Project Delivery a more efficient process than its
alternatives.
Also, the AGC of America has stated that, IPD is conceptually based on a collaborative arrangement of
the major project stakeholders early in the process, implemented in an environment of “best-for-project
thinking” and shared risk and reward. This collaboration of stakeholders works to define project issues
at the outset, helping to identify conflicts, establish performance criteria, minimize waste, increase
efficiency, and maximize the scope achieved for limited project budgets. The ultimate goal is to create a
project environment that produces a positive outcome for all stakeholders. Although not exclusive to
the IPD delivery method, multi-party agreements can include incentive clauses based on the idea of
shared savings among the project team. All parties have the incentive for speed, quality and shared
project profitability.
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) defined in a joint paper by the AIA & AGC of America:
IPD is a method of project delivery distinguished by a contractual arrangement among a minimum of
The owner, constructor and design professional that aligns business interests of all parties. IPD

3. Motivates collaboration throughout the design and construction process, tying stakeholder success to
Project success, and embodies the following contractual and behavioral principles:
Contractual Principles:
 Key Participants Bound Together as Equals
 Shared Financial Risk and Reward Based on Project Outcome
 Liability Waivers between Key Participants
 Fiscal Transparency between Key Participants
 Early Involvement of Key Participants
 Jointly Developed Project Target Criteria
 Collaborative Decision Making
Behavioral Principles:
 Mutual Respect and Trust
 Willingness to Collaborate
 Open Communication
New Challenges for the rest of the Building Team:
IPD calls for a new strategic approach by subcontractors, suppliers, general contractors and building
products manufacturers? For everyone it means that relationships are more important than ever.
 Subcontractors and suppliers will benefit by forming relationships with general contractors
proactively, because they will be making decisions on quality products and services, at the most
competitive prices much more quickly.
 General contractors will need to avail themselves to the best document and bid management
platforms available to compete and become part of an IPD process. And if you are not a BIM
shop, this should change that.
 Building product manufacturers will have to ensure that their multichannel marketing and sales
execution strategies not only include the traditional architects and consulting engineers. It will
be imperative to create and maintain an aggressive communications strategy with their
customers, “general contractor, subcontractors and suppliers”. The practice of value
engineering increases greatly in IPD, because the contractor and your customers will make final
product decisions.
Written by Doug Bevill; Director of Enterprise Solutions for The Blue Book Building & Construction
Network. Source material: The American Institute of Architects & The AGC of America.