





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.


characterized by a contract that incentivizes collaborative behavior, team risk-sharing and other IPD principles and practices.




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.



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.



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.
.



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

objectives rather than
a prescriptive solution
See the gDocs Constitution and IPD comparison document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jmNqMvEzMHbhHyZwJVO-IgOgkuYZL9aWxEtaeUMF_Y/edit?usp=sharing



The party that funds the project. Many time will also be the prime occupant, but not necessarily so. In the event of a PPP project the occupant may be only the public tenant and the owner is the financing and operating entity that develops the project for the public entity. In other cases a private developer may create a special built-for-purpose facility for a tenant occupant under a lease-occupancy agreement.

The general contractor or major builder with knowledge about the physical execution of the project

If the project is a water/wastewater project than Civil design and mechanical design will be the lead design disciplines. If it is a manufacturing facility then mechanical and industrial design disciplines will govern, otherwise traditional architectural design would be the lead design discipline.

Key Supplier trades will be driven by the project type. In the event of a manufacturing or process-centric project type, the key suppliers of equipment could be key drivers in the main effort of the project. For instance electronic chip manufacturing or water purification would be examples of key suppliers being major contributing suppliers and early participants in those kind of projects. Civil ia another example for roadway design or pipeline designs.




The key negotiation issues are: 1) the target cost; 2) the normal profit level; 3) the maximum contribution amount (“at risk profit”); 4) the percentage allocation between contractor and architect; and 5) the percentage allocation of cost savings between the owner and design team. The correct balance of these issues varies between specific projects and teams. In general, however, the owner wants to assure that the target cost
is below similar projects delivered conventionally and that the maximum contribution amount is large enough to soften a moderate cost overrun. The architect, contractor and any sub-consultants or subcontractors within the shared risk/profit group want to assure that the target cost is high enough that, if they work collaboratively, there is a real chance they can better the target price. Moreover, they want a percentage of shared savings that is a real incentive and a reasonable limit to the amount of their risk. All parties have a shared interest in getting the numbers right because the correct balance encourages the collaboration that benefits everyone.

If the project is completed for less than the target cost, a portion of the savings and any “at risk” profit is paid to the participants. If the target cost is exceeded, the owner continues to pay direct costs, but for each dollar above the target, the amount of “at risk” profit to be distributed is similarly decreased. This sharing of costs continues until the “at risk” profit is exhausted. But if the actual cost is less than or equal to the target cost,
the “at risk” profit, plus a percentage of the cost savings, is distributed to the non-owner participants.





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/

The Perfect Square
Gather your team in a circle, and have them sit down. Each team member should then put on a provided blindfold. Taking a long rope with its ends tied together, place the rope in each person’s hands so that they all have a hold of it. Leave the circle. Instruct them to form a perfect square out of the rope without removing their blindfolds. Once the team believes they have formed a square, they can remove the blindfolds and see what they’ve accomplished.
You can introduce variations into this game. For example, you might, at random, instruct a team member to not speak. One by one, members of the group are muted, making communication more challenging. Or, let the team come up with a plan before putting on the blindfold, but once they cannot see, they also cannot talk.
Purpose: This exercise deals with both communication and leadership styles. There will inevitably be team members who want to take charge, and others who want to be given direction. The team will have to work together to create the square, and find a way to communicate without being able to see. By introducing the “muting” feature, you also inject the question of trust. Since instructions can’t be vocally verified, the team member calling out instructions has to trust those who cannot talk to do as they are told.
https://wheniwork.com/blog/team-building-games/






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.

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.

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:

Only once did the two teams bypass Mandez and negotiate directly with each other. Once they realized that they each needed different components of the orange they became collaborative and resolved the issue satisfactorily even going so far as to share the costs. They provided Mandez with a reasonable profit even though the demand had radically shifted.

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.

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.

Make A Fist Listening Exercise - Assumptions
Brief Description/Purpose
An incredibly easy and short demonstration/exercise to get people talking about listening, and how we all make assumptions, Sohini Mazumder

Teens, Adults
Ideal Group Size
Any size. Works with very large groups.
Time For Exercise
Just about one minute to do the demonstration, then 5-10 minutes to discuss.
Topic/Subject
Communication, assumptions, active listening
Detailed Instructions If Needed
Ask for two volunteers to join you in front of the group.
Ask for one person to make a fist.
Tell the other person to open the fist of the other person.
What usually happens is that the person making the fist will resist the attempt to unclasp the fist, even though no instruction was given to resist.
If there is resistance, ask the person why s/he is resisting. Then indicate that you didn't provide that instruction, and that often we assume things that are not intended.
You can also discuss remedies -- how active listening would have prevented the misunderstanding.
Cautions/Hints
Your volunteer may, in fact, not resist. If this happens, you have two options. Laugh, and make some comment about the situation, OR:
Ask for another pair of volunteers to join you, and repeat the exercise, OR, ask the first pair to reverse roles. When you do it a second time, it's more likely you'll get resistance as you would expect.


Dot Voting
Purpose: Rank a group of selections by using dots as votes of support for an idea. Multiple rounds of voting helps make selection of items to support easier to decide.

First round: Each person had 4 green dots to mark the issues that would make the biggest difference on the next release.
Second round: Each person had 4 orange dots to mark the issues where the people in the room had influence or control.
Third round: Each person had 4 yellow dots where to mark where he or she personally had interest and energy to work on an issue.
At the end it was clear that there were issues that would make a big difference, but no on had energy to work on them. And it was clear where people felt they could actually make a difference.
(Since this was a release retrospective, many of the issues crossed organizational boundaries and could not be solved within the team.)
Faced with a long list of issues, three-color dot voting worked to winnow the list down to a manageable number of items for the team to tackle.

Ladder Ranking:
Give small groups of participants six to twelve statements on separate cards or post-its. Ask them to place the statements in vertical order of their importance, with the most important at the top of the "ladder." Ask groups with the same statements to compare and explain their results.

Buy My Soap
Players: pitchers and buyers
Pitchers are those "selling" an idea. The key here is quick, concise description of an idea or feature you are trying to get support for.
Buyers are those who are going to buy the idea. You may make everyone play as both a Pitcher and Buyer.

Bidding and support for an idea can only be opened twice, once when pitched and a final pitch fest at the end when all pitches are open for support. This becomes a kind of bedlam of noise where all the "pitchers" are clamoring for support from the buyers.
Time: 2 minutes per pitch and a final 2 minute "bedlam" round. Limit the number of pitches to no more than 12. Preferably 8 to 10 pitches, otherwise it will be too confusing.
Notes: You are looking for three or four clear winners of majority support. If you don't get this, then your ideas selection is probably too weak or too much the same thing to get a differentiation.

