IDP Course

Imagemap
IDP Course Introduction What is it? AIA describes it as: a project delivery approach that integra ... AGC and ConDocs calls it: Integrated Project Delivery as a Deliver ... What We call IPD A centralized or unified agreement that  ... Why The market expects
more control over pro ... Greater reliability better project execution activity gives known outcome Better management outcomes Lower initial cost quicker time to occupancy fewer in-field corrections after approve ... Higher quality lower cost of operation / cost Higher performance high building operating efficiency higher functional utility comfort ease of use Greater predictability
of outcomes simulations of performance simulations of assembly simulations of use Today's project delivery is
complex, som ... Cynefin framework Obvious Tightly constrained, few options Best practice cause and effect Complicated Governed Constraints, Tightly coupled Good Practices Linear progression of analysis and synth ... Complex Enabeling Constraints, Loosely coupled Emergent Practices Complex iteration approaching a solution Chaos - Wicked lacking constraints, de-coupled Novel or innovative Practices Investigation and probing to discover re ... DBB is based on the Obvious and begins t ... IPD is based on the Complicated and anti ... Because we can BIM IoT to BIM integration Fabrication Installation Operations CAD-CAM to-from BIM integration > Direct ... Can blockchain be implemented here? BIM to FM integration IoT to FM integration SCADA systems IoT performance monitoring for environme ... Maintenance assistance IoT performance monitoring to trigger ma ... User interface enhancements Occupancy sensors Function triggers that turn on something ... Direct user interaction / request Augmented Reality Virtual Realtiy Blockchain integration w/ IoT interface  ... What's Different about IPD? 4 c"s It embraces change It encourages conversation It requires collaboration It demands cooperationg Team
Behavior Mutual respect and trust willingness to collaborate open communication The
Agreement A group of equals Shared risk liability waivers Fiscal Transparency Everyone involved in Design as early as  ... Jointly developed Project criteria Collaborative decision-making Enabling
Features Multi-party agreement Building Information Modeling Light-weight management Lean Agile Co-location of team physical virtual Target Design Value Set-Based Design The Players Owners - the team captain IPD Projects rely on strong leadership f ... Designers - the play makers Creative solutions make the difference Builders - the executioners Great execution creates anticipated valu ... Suppliers & Fabricators - Special Teams High Performance from specialization The Game The rules play fair agree to disagree - It's not about your  ... share - it's easier shout out when you need help take a friend's hand when it's given admit when you are in over your head We're all in this together - for better  ... The unwritten rules Rule 1: This only works when you agree t ... Rule 2: Working with others is the only  ... Rule 3: Refer to Rule 1 Strategy Everyone has a voice Experience is valuable and it gets a voi ... Good Experience is worth something Bad Experience might be worth more than  ... Work with what you have It's better to act than not - inaction i ... ROB (Return on Broken) inaction is often the same as failure The Loss as compared to what should be a ... You already know most of what you need t ... More brains are usually better Used well, a lot of ideas creates a bett ... Honing an idea to it's best and sharpest working an idea over from lots of differ ... Getting another view Broader experience gives us better under ... Cross-fertilization of ideas the genesis of innovation Basic Agreement Features Collaborative negotiation - not adversar ... Finding common ground interests that ben ... Finding outcomes that benefit everyone Then determine actions for those outcome ... Target Cost Design method A constitution of performance
objectives ... Guidelines for how to act, thinking abou ... Remove impedements to and stimulate communication collaboration creativity Align parties with agreed on principles Encourage and reward behavior that incre ... Early Involvement key influencers Owner Builder Key Designers - based on project type Architectural Electrical Mechanical Civil Process Specialty Key Supplier Trades Earthworks Structural Applied Systems Mechanical Electrical Process Shared Risk and Reward Outcomes based increases project commitment aligns parties to project goals incentivises participation in IPD Joint Project Control risk control perceived and real risk reduction sense of ownership Project Management team Highly involved Owner Control is a reflection of project goals ... Reduced Project
Liability Exposure Increase communication increase creativity reduce excess contingencies reduce fear of failure and exploration o ... reduce litigation costs Joint Project targets
validated by all e ... The basis for all design decisions The nexus of functionality, economy and  ... Target Value Design goals Equity partners own all the project goal ... Project goals have incentives tied to th ... Different incentives for different partn ... Enabling Frameworks Collaborative Decision-making Co-Location Physical Virtual Design and Management techniques Light-weight Management Agile Design Lean Construction Blockchain smart contracts BIM Common electronic database Open framework interoperability Systems integration Operations SCADA Facility
Management Maintenance Finance Federated model simulation code compliance functional performance safety performance spatial verification class detection code compliance Primary Considerations Scope Primary Goal(s) The driving reasons for a project Why a project exists The key deliverable for a project financial environmental social Primary evaluation for project
validity  ... Targets for performance set
before desig ... financial environmental operational social Contingencies True unforeseen conditions Real risk to be planned for Unplanned for changes by Owner Change in Scope approved by
Management T ... Unplanned risk Funding Private and / or public funding sources  ... Duration How long will the project last. Is it only a contract to deliver facilit ... Or is longer term operations and upgrade ... Uncertainty How certain or valid might the project b ... Project scope and validation phases are  ... Technical and/or financial feasibility Participants - partners Who is best able to help manage risk and ... Governance and Operations Unanimous vs. Consensus or executive ove ... When each governance mode is appropriate Partners "Bill of Rights" Effective prescriptive methods for dispu ... Effective limitation of liability and ex ... Compensation Fair return on effort and investment encourages parties to be efficient and c ... Buffer cost overruns Exercises for Learning collaborating Risk sharing games trust-building conflict resolution ranking choices Price and Value
hide
IDP Course
hidewizard full-1
Introduction
hide
Why
hidepassword full-2
The Players

As in competitive sports efforts, IPD teams are made up of different kinds of players. Each with their own important roles to play. None of them are indispensable. All of them play an important role that leads to success. Leave out any of them and you set yourself up for potential failure. As in any coordinated effort leadership is key and IPD is no different. Owners should be the core of the leadership effort. In the end they represent the end-users who will gain the most benefit from the building. They set the baseline for building performance and project criteria. Other team members can help by determining how these criteria are to be met, but Owners are in the unique place to set the design and performance criteria for IPD projects. Designers can help Owners realize those dreams or inspire Owners toward possibilities, but in the end Owners have to make the decisions about how and why a project moves forward. This is a crucial difference from other project delivery methods because the Owner is so involved in moving building project criteria forward. Often these requirements are very general in nature and often left to what is considered to be "industry standards" or "best design practice" for the time. IPD takes this further in asking why and how these professional norms can be enhanced and improved. How can the Owner receive additional operational value if a better design and higher quality execution are used to create the design.

Previously, it was difficult to control the variables that go into building a structure, but today we have more integrated design and fabrication processes that allow us to collaborate more closely between those who think and those who execute ideas in real products. Often the probable goes from possible to reality very quickly just because designers, fabricators and installers can and do communicate openly and freely.

This open collaboration is one of the strengths of IPD. To achieve this openness IPD uses unique agreement structures where the participants agree to hold each other harmless and focus on the good of a project over the benefit of individual people and entities. IPD turns the adversarial, "What's in it for me?" into "What's in it for we?" Now designers, craftsmen and suppliers can focus on what is the best available solution for a given problem with less fear about failure. The process changes from guessing about a solution with a safe guess to testing ideas to come up with data that gives us either real-world experience solutions or very good simulation-based solutions ready to implement. Simulation and visualization modeling has made it possible to understand the physical world in the virtual world without having to fabricate every possible alternative. Now we only need to fabricate the best virtual solutions to get much better results, much earlier at much lower overall cost. This close interaction of Owners, designers, suppliers and fabricators is the heart of why IPD is so effective in delivering reliable projects at reasonable, knowable cost.

IPD may not cost less, but it will be a known cost. IPD will probably deliver in less time than traditional methods because there is less overall waste in the process. IPD usually is a better overall experience because there is less emotional stress due to higher levels of trust between the parties. It does not mean there are fewer problems to solve, but it does mean solving them will probably be easier and at lower risk to everyone. In many cases much of the savings gained in efficient communication goes back into the project invested in greater quality and functionality. So cost may not be lower but for the same cost there is higher functionality delivered, which can be thought of as higher value. McGraw-Hill (MGH) indicated in their 2014 Delivery Methods Survey that Owners thought IPD was a good choice when the goals for a project included higher expectations for cost control, quality and schedule. Other reasons Owners thought IPD was a good choice included pursuit of innovation, high project complexity and effective shift of risk from the Owner to the IPD team. Where Owners seek high performance buildings that are of high quality IPD should be the delivery method of choice. No other delivery method has the potential for success that IPD delivers. In fact, when complexity exists, is when IPD shines the brightest. Healthcare, research and high tech manufacturing are three areas where IPD methods have proven they can deliver the highest amount of value. But any project from commercial or residential to infrastructure projects can benefit from the more efficient and collaborative processes used in IPD. Professional practitioners from every specialization find their work more fulfilling and enjoyable when using IPD as a delivery method.

hidepassword full-2
The Game

The game of IPD is played differently than any of the other methods of delivering the Built Environment. The basis of IPD is collaboration built on trust and open exchange. Without this basic element of IPD the method is no different than other delivery methods. IPD seeks to remove the siloed barriers to communication that most traditional methods encourage or enforce. To do this new agreements have to be in place to both encourage and enforce the right kind of behavior to allow IPD to work.

IPD requires a certain kind of courage to admit when you need help and be able to accept help when it's offered. This goes against the grain of traditional DBB or even DB agreements where there are strict boundaries for liability and activities that create liability for parties. IPD seeks to remove most of these barriers to cooperation by creating an environment where trial and error and innovation are rewarded not discouraged. Also where risk is delegated where it can be dealt with easiest. Having a partner that is not able to deal with a risky situation creates a greater risk for everyone, so having someone lend a hand and preventing a problem is better than allowing a situation to get out of hand for everyone.

The game is about "We" not "Me" and that's a big mental shift for some companies to make. In fact if you aren't already moving in this direction, you should think about starting. It is the future of all business. The days of outright adversarial competition are going away. The days of collaboration and working with those who you may think of as your competitors are here already. Learning how to see new opportunities for longer term relationships, rather than just a single transaction is another paradigm shift IPD embraces.

The Unwritten Rules

  Rule 1: This only works when you agree to work with others

  Rule 2: Working with others is the only way this works

  Rule 3: Refer to Rule 1

IPD does work and work well Survey Owner 80% of respondents of the MGH Delivery Methods Survey of 2014 said IPD reduced costs for them. That's a tremendous trend on one of the three most important evaluation factors for Owners. While there aren't many Owners who have used IPD, as of the date of the 2014 MGH survey it indicated IPD was only 3% of the market. Given that the US commercial construction market in 2014 was estimated to be worth $627 Billion, 3% of that would represent over $18 Billion of value. If IPD conservatively saved 10% of the value of the projects, that represents a savings of $1.8 Billion IPD projects saved. The forecast was for IPD to increase it's use up to 6% of the market by 2017. If we assume a market penetration of 5% currently the value of projects in place in the US using IPD would be 5% of $710 Billion in non-residential construction value or $35.5 Billion or almost 100% increase over two years. Using the same conservative savings estimates of 10% would result in over $3.5 Billion in savings. If we could advance the use of IPD into 30% of the construction projects in the US, we would save $21 Billion each year. That's as much as the adjusted annual Federal construction budget for 2016. At 16.99 trillion GDP, the savings alone using IPD would amount to .12% of GDP. That's a lot of money and a conservative estimate. I have seen several IPD projects realize 15% and more over similar traditional delivery projects. IDP is the single greatest tool we have to make real change in the AEC marketplace. As a systematized solution it is the only significant tool that has come along in the past 200 years. And we are just getting started. The promise of IDP is that we will be able to deliver better projects in less time, for less cost. That's known as a Grand Slam - beating all three of the traditional sides of the Iron Triangle of time, cost and quality. 

hidepassword full-3
Strategy

So how do you start and how do you compete when working with IPD? First  you make use of the advantages that teams experience in delivering IPD projects, of any type are significant in the eyes of any Owner when you have better cost control, schedule control and deliver a higher quality product. You beat Design-Build and and CM @ R, the two current market leaders hands down. When you can overcome the resistance of a new type of delivery method and institute the right kind of governance, you provide a safe environment for everyone to deliver a project without creating unnecessary risk for Builders, Owners or Designers. For smart Owners now they have a way to control cost, increase value and shorten the delivery cycle and most importantly, set the stage for a much lower life-cycle-cost for their buildings because IPD creates a digital database that can be leveraged against the life-cycle of the building to help operate and maintain it. Here is where the real savings are to be had. Construction value of a building is only about 10% of the total life-cycle cost. If we are spending $1.153 Trillion on all construction, that represents a spending over time of over 11.53 Trillion in maintenance and operations spending. Reductions there of only 5% would represent $576 Billion, or about half of what is spent on all new construction annually. Leveraging the power of correctly implemented IPD is a life-cycle payback with and ROI in the 1000's of percent starting with immediate benefits already mentioned of cost containment, savings and increased quality.

.

So, why aren't Owners and others using IPD all the time - uncertainty and ignorance? That's were we come in. We are here to help teams learn how to use IPD with templates for organizing, running and negotiating IPD agreements. Our strategy is to start small and learn in safe environments before taking on key projects. Get comfortable with relationships before being tested with larger responsibilities. This is a large change in so many ways. It is a change in thinking about how a project is run, how it is paid for and what the longer term goals for a building are. In the past projects focused on getting moved in and didn't worry much, if any about what happened after occupancy. Now we know better. Now opening the door is just the beginning. With the advent of Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) as an extension of IPD, Owners now have an option to look at facilities as a part of their corporate strategy. With carbon trade credits being a reality in many parts of the world and coming to the US in California first, long-term operations costs and the ability to approach carbon neutrality means a long-term view that is radically different from the old idea of build something and then use it for a while then throw it away.

.

IPD is the first step in a wholistic corporate strategy that responds to the triple-bottom line of Profit, People and Environment, where all three benefit in their own way. Proctor & Gamble is already heading in this direction with their agreement with Jones-Lang-LaSalle to help them run their facilities across 60 countries. While this agreement was predominantly for existing facilities, it demonstrates what can be done with even limited resources. Jones Lang-LaSalle did not have full digital datasets to help run those P&G facilities, but they did take on the project in a way that sought to increase service levels and reduce cost at the same time. In the language of their negotiations, P&G wanted someone to help them by taking CHARGE of their buildings, not just CARE for them. P&G was looking for a partner that was willing to have an interest in their business as much as they were looking to have an interest in that new partner. This was not a typical "arms-length" transaction, but an opportunity to build a relationship. JLL sees a steady change in the CRE market and P&G is only the first of several clients that are responding to market forces that see corporate facilities as a cost center, a shortage of high-quality facilities in all markets, ubiquitous technology solutions create flexible work spaces, a shrinking talent and labor pool and a growing demand to act more responsible when it comes to environmental concerns. All these market forces demand a higher initial level of quality for facilities when they are delivered. IPD responds favorably to these demands both initially and sets the stage for the growing long-term considerations.

.

 

hidepassword full-4
Basic Agreement Features

All the basic IPD agreement features any IPD project must have to be successful.

hide
Primary Considerations
hide
Scope
hide
Compensation
hidefull-2 full-3
Exercises for Learning
hide
Risk sharing games
leaf

Do The Math

Create “tasks” that are assigned different values. For example, you might have “Climb Mt. Everest” and give it a value of 35, while “Give the dog a bath” has a value of 3.

Give each member of your team three cards with the same number on them so that every team member has a set of numbers different from every other player. One person will have all 1’s, while another might have all 10’s. The goal is to accomplish the tasks in a set amount of time so that whoever is left will get a prize based on the total value of the tasks completed.

However, in order to “do” the task, they must get people together whose numbered cards add up to the value on the task. Once a card is used, it can’t be used again. And once a team member has used up all their cards, they are taken out of the game and out of the running for the prize.

Ideally, there are more tasks and values than can be fulfilled by the cards your team possesses. They must determine which tasks to do, and which cards to use up. Ultimately, not every task can be completed, and not everyone can be a winner. The goal is to get the highest total task value (for the best prize), and work together to achieve it knowing that in order to do so, some will miss out.

Purpose: This rather painful game helps your team work together, understanding both strategy and self-sacrifice. Hopefully, once the game is over you’ll see that everyone has some kind of prize or reward, but it’s best to allow the team to not know that during game play.

https://wheniwork.com/blog/team-building-games/

hide
conflict resolution
hide

Hidden Agenda 

Purpose

This exercise helps delegates to understand the importance of working together and the destructive nature of having hidden agendas which can easily lead to conflicts and confrontations. It addresses many areas such as conflict management, assertiveness and persuasion skills.

leaf
Objective
Build a wall based on the instructions given while also following your own hidden agenda.

What You Need
Coloured Lego bricks or suitable toy building blocks. Make sure the set contains varied sizes and shapes. The set must contain Blue, Black, Red and White bricks.
Agenda cards. These cards state a number of “hidden agenda” missions that delegates must follow. See below for what each card should contain.

Setup
Divide the delegates to groups of 4 or less.
Explain to the groups that their objective is to build a wall using the toy block based on your given instructions.
Write your instructions on a flipchart so everyone can see. For example:
“Make a wall 6 rows high and two blocks wide with a window.”
Distribute one random “Agenda Card” to each delegate. Explain that these are their hidden agendas and they should not reveal it to others. When going through the design they should take steps to implement their agenda in the final design.
Examples of Agenda Cards are as follows. You can modify these to bias the exercise in the direction of your choice and based on the available bricks.
Make sure that there are 4 white bricks touching each other horizontally.
Make sure that there are 3 blue bricks on each row.
Make sure that no black bricks are used in the first or last row.
Make sure that there is a vertical line of red bricks touching each other top to bottom.
Make sure that no row contains more than three colours.
Make sure that no blue brick touches a red brick.
Make sure that there is a white brick every two rows.
Make sure that every row contains a 2x3s (2 by 3 studs).
Make sure that a black 2x4s is not touching a red 2x2s.
Naturally, conflicts may arise as a result of following hidden agendas. The design will also take longer to finish and group’s satisfaction in their task could also be hampered.
Allocate about 15 minutes and then bring everyone back together for a discussion.

Timing
Explaining the Exercise: 5 minutes

Activity: 15 minutes

Group Feedback: 10 minutes
Discussion
Which group managed to achieve the objective? Who achieved his own agenda? What sort of difficulties did you have? Could you all achieve your agendas? Did it lead to conflicts? If so, did you manage to resolve them by compromising? Were your inputs dismissed in fear of thinking that you have a hidden agenda? Could you gain and keep others’ trust? What was the overall effect of hidden agenda on task completion and more importantly on moral? What was the most important lesson you learned in this exercise?

Alternates
You can run the exercise as a competition between groups with a prize to increase pressure which would exaggerate the effect of hidden agenda even more.
hide

The Orange Negotiation

In Roger Fisher’s book, Getting to Yes, The Orange Exercise was first described as a challenge for two kids fighting over a single orange, the only one left in the fruit bowl. In that scenario, the children learn that one needed the peel for baking and the other needed the juice to quench his thirst. On LinkedIN, Susan Meredith has shared another version of this scenario as a brief negotiation exercise. It goes like this:

hide

4-Word-Build

4-Word-Build is an excellent conflict resolution exercise to elicit a shared understanding, or a shared vision of an idea or concept. It also identifies that we usually do not have such a shared vision - but that we can create one.

leaf
The exercise can also provide an insight into the ways in which decisions are made within any given team or group, and as such is an excellent teamwork exercise.
Choose a word, idea or concept that you want the group to explore.
This could be:
*An idea you are providing some training in - for example I have used it for the words 'Mediation', 'Conflict', 'Teamwork', 'Communication' etc..
*A new initiative in your organisation - the exercise will enable you to find out what people's understanding of it is at the moment.
*A difficult situation that it has been hard to discuss - for example it could be 'smoking breaks' or some other issue.
The exercise:
Ideally groups of 4, 8, 12, 16 etc. but this is not essential - other numbers work as well ....
First of all give each person in the group a sheet of paper and a pen.
Ask each person to write down 4 words that come up for them when they think of the word or concept being explored. They should not consult with others, just write down their own ideas.
If they seem hesitant, point out that there are no 'right' or 'wrong' words, just their own ideas.
For example, if the word being explored is 'conflict' someone may have written:
War - Argument - Disagreement - Fight

Next, ask the members of the group to form pairs.
If there is an odd number of people, a group of 3 can also be formed.
In the pairs, there will now be 2 people with 8 words between them which represent, for them, the word being explored, in this case 'conflict'.
Ask them to agree on 4 words to keep from their 8 original words, and therefore they will also have to eliminate 4 words.
So now the pair have 'their' 4 words for the word or concept being explored. (In the case of a group of 3 they will have reduced their original 12 words down to 4)
Next ask each pair to join with another pair and do exactly the same thing.
That is, there will be groups of 4 people discussing 8 words and they will need to reduce the 8 words down to 4. (Again, if the numbers don't quite work, you may create different sized groups....... see below for an example of ways you can do this).
This further discussion of the original word, this time with each pair bringing their learnings and insights from their own discussion, creates even deeper exploration of the word or concept.
The outcome of this will be groups of 4 people with their group's 4 words to represent the word being explored.
This process can obviously continue again and again, but ideally you need to end up with about 8 words for the whole group of people you are working with
Next, the review of the activity:
Ideally, have the whole group's 8 words visible to all, for example on a flip-chart or whiteboard, with the original word or concept above the list of 8 words.
Various different questions can then be asked about the exercise.
Choose from some or all of those given below and, of course you can create other questions that you feel are relevant:
- Ask for any observations any of them have about the final words.
- Ask if there are any new insights into the original word that they gained through the exercise.
- Ask how they felt about doing the exercise.
- Ask what, if anything, they learned from doing it.
The group will already have had a rich discussion of the word or concept the exercise is exploring, but now they can see where they got to as a group. This is likely to have led to various insights and learnings for many of them and sharing them in the group is likely to increase this.
A common cause of communication breakdown in groups or organisations can be a range of different interpretations of a basic idea or concept. There can be many assumptions that there is a shared view when in fact there is not.
This exercise can vastly increase the level of consensus regarding a particular topic or initiative or concept or issue and its potential for application is extremely broad.
hide
ranking choices