In the age of technology, one could assume that construction and design have never been more in sync. In reality, both seem to be parting ways due to the lack of project collaboration, effective communication, and poor implementation of technology. Similar to fairy tales that don’t have happy endings, some of the most recent projects in the industry are suffering unfortunate outcomes. Complex design is often one of the main challenges to be overcome in the construction phase.

As AEC (architecture, engineering, and construction) professionals, we evaluate the impact of the design complexities and construction methodologies, only after the design has been completed and construction is underway, or even worse, toward the end of these processes when it is almost unimaginable to explore other possibilities. This article will review how certain delivery methods impact the design throughout the whole process.

According to FMI 2018 report, 82% of owners were projected to employ DBB (Design-Bid-Build) in the next 5 years as a preferred delivery method due to the familiarity of the framework, inherent to this model (Figure 1). DBB or traditional delivery method involves three key stakeholders—owner, architect, and contractor (GC). The process is very linear, starting with the architect and his/her consultants developing the design and delivering a single package of bid documents. After the design and drawings are completed, the bidding phase takes place in order to select the GC to execute the work. After the GC has been selected (typically the lowest bidder), the construction begins. In this method, potential flaws in the design phase are identified and resolved through RFIs (requests for information) during construction.

As the project advances in the construction phase and RFIs require longer response times, project delays are almost a natural consequence. More often than not, we encounter situations in which design decisions are rushed through in order to avoid major delays. The risks associated with the traditional delivery method are quite complex.

One of the largest GCs in the USA— Mortenson—lists some of the most common risks associated with DBB, which are reduced quality, increased number of change orders due to lack of clarity of the project scope, limited space for innovation, delays and cost overruns due to redesign. DBB naturally offers very little opportunity for collaboration between the architect and GC because they are contracted separately with the owner. As a result, the design is in a constant silo between the architect, owner, and GC, and the possibility of interactive resolution on the project becomes a challenge. During construction, design changes become the norm as a natural response to the constructability issues, encountered on site.

As stated by Kim Slowey in his article The Dotted Line: Why is design-bid-build still the No. 1 process?, there are many reasons why DBB is still the preferred method among owners such as legal as well as cultural reasons. He further quotes Robert Luckey that the design community is not ready to take direction from the owner or contractor in some of the design decisions.

Figure 1. Projected delivery method utilization by owners in 2018. Source: FMI Corporation – Combined Market

Study(https://www.fminet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Design-Build-Market-Research-FMI-2018.pdf)

In recent years, there has been an inevitable and significant shift towards utilizing VDC (virtual design and construction) workflows and primarily the use of BIM (building information modeling) on construction projects with the intention of providing better interoperability and collaboration.

Innovative technologies are continuously pushing stakeholders toward collaborative culture and constant knowledge sharing, which delivers opportunities for design optimization and reduction of design changes. Technology has immensely impacted the construction industry in ways that make traditional delivery method adaptations challenging and even obsolete. In the article BIM for production: benefits and challenges for its application in a design-bid-build project, the author explores the demand for information through the production of BIM under the DBB delivery method. The case study shows how the BIM model and it’s information evolved through the stages of design and construction. The study determined that the BIM models are significantly impacted by the silo effect, and do not suffice for effective use of BIM.

The design models do not contain the LOD (level of detail) required for the construction phase of the project (think of shop drawings, LOD 400). As a result of the lack of information, 90% of the solutions to the design challenges were still developed during the construction phase. As we progress in this new technological era, it becomes more apparent and logical that there should be a shift from DBB to IPD (integrated project delivery) method.

What value would the IPD add to preserving or enhancing the design?

IPD is established on the basis of bringing together key project stakeholders early in the design process to promote collaboration, continuous information flow, and feedback.

According to the document “Integrated Project Delivery for Public and Private Owners,” the idea of this delivery method is to allow for contribution of knowledge and expertise early on in the design process in order to limit change orders, reduce waste associated with the traditional delivery method, and most importantly, manifest the design through construction.

Unlike DBB, focused on paper-based communication and prone to multiple errors and less opportunities to capture potential design flaws, IPD establishes BIM (3D, 4D, 5D, 6D, and 7D) as a centralized communication platform. IPD aims to challenge the adversarial culture in construction and provide more efficiency and partnership among all stakeholders. According to the article “Project Delivery Methods – Which Is Best for Your Projects?” by Tom Porter, IPD introduces a singular agreement signed by all parties which is the base for shared risk and reward, collaborative decision making, and early employment of construction strategies.

The IPD BIM platform is much more dynamic and flexible than the end result from the traditional method (2D drawings), because it allows for analysis of design options. In addition, BIM promotes better data management and communication of ideas to all stakeholders as soon as the project takes off.

Like DBB, IPD also has disadvantages, which are predominantly associated with the current cultural climate in the industry as well as the newness of this approach toward delivering projects. In the article Create a Lean, Construction Building Machine with Integrated Project Management, Diana Ramos describes a few of the disadvantages associated with IPD. Some of them include owner engagement, difficulty finding IPD experts, and trust among all participants. A good number of the listed cons are based on the lack of commitment to engage in the project or simply experience working with IPD. It is crucial to emphasize that BIM workflows only partially resolve the issues linked with DBB. We shouldn’t forget that creating a holistic design is grounded on mutual collaboration and contribution among stakeholders in which BIM facilitates the conversation. It will be impossible to challenge the inability of BIM to resolve current issues, without challenging the people’s involvement and dedication to project goals.

Up until this point, we have been discussing the ways in which the design gets impacted in these two delivery methods. But why are we discussing the design and not the end product?

The answer is simple—the design is the foundation of the end product and it paves the way to the project culture and workflows associated with it. We are no longer discussing the design as simply the architect’s creative mind poured into paper, but we are rather focusing on the essence of the project—the owner’s key project goals, realized on the construction site. In this sense, the key to a successful project is resolution of design implications through collaboration, effective communication, and employment of technology.

Not all projects are the same—all projects are unique. There is no doubt that IPD offers a more innovative approach to construction not only through integration of technology and stakeholders at early stages in the process, but also through the assumption of equality among all project participants. However, as stated in the document “Integrated Project Delivery – An Action Guide for Leaders,” we cannot expect that IPD is the singular answer to all projects. Among some of the aspects to consider when implementing IPD on a certain project include project size, project team, and even administrative effort.

IPD does deliver superior results to other project delivery methods, but it also requires greater engagement and leadership from all parties involved in the project. In the article Integrated Project Delivery Aligning Project Organization, Operating System and Commercial Terms by Joel Darrington and William Lichtig, the case study of Sutter Health’s Castro Valley Replacement Hospital shows how IPD supersedes the rest of the delivery methods. The metrics undoubtedly show incredible reductions to the project schedule, realized savings from the original budget, passed inspections on the first try, and no compromises to the owner’s objectives (page 15). We almost never hear of construction projects that don’t undergo critical schedule hurdles, don’t have an increased number of change orders, and don’t have possible construction claims.