AHPP 508-518.pdf

C H A P T E R 9 PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y Design Project Delivery 9.1 Project Deliver y Methods Phillip G. Bernstein, FAIA The organization, strategy, and responsibilities of the key players in the building process—including the owner, architect, and contractor—comprise the proj...

C H A P T E R 9 PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y Design Project Delivery 9.1 Project Deliver y Methods Phillip G. Bernstein, FAIA The organization, strategy, and responsibilities of the key players in the building process—including the owner, architect, and contractor—comprise the project delivery method for the project. Multiple models are available, and can be chosen based on which project variables—cost, schedule, building quality, risks, and capabilities—are driving the project. I NTR OD UC TIO N A completed building results from a complex sequence of decisions made by the many participants in the design and construction process. For a project to run smoothly, someone must define responsibilities, organize and integrate the work of the participants, and manage the process by which the project is developed and delivered to the owner. The architect, who is deeply involved in most projects from inception to completion, may assume this role as the first construction professional hired by the owner, although this position is increasingly being assumed by construction managers and advisors. Nonetheless, the owner relies on the architect’s expertise about delivery decisions, and the architect should help to determine which delivery method best suits the owner’s needs. Since the project delivery model can dramatically affect the results of a Phillip G. Bernstein is vice president for strategic industry relations of Autodesk Inc. and a former principal with Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects. Bernstein teaches at the Yale School of Architecture and lectures and writes extensively on project delivery and technology issues. He is former chair of the AIA Contract Documents Committee. 508 9.1 Project Delivery Methods PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y building project, an understanding of delivery approach options is central to the successful practice of architecture. Most delivery methods have evolved primarily in response to different roles assumed by the entity that constructs a building and the relationship of that entity to the architect. The roles and responsibilities of this player, variously known as the “contractor,” the “GC,” the “construction manager,” or the “design-builder,” can vary greatly in different delivery methods, and the information provided by the design team must be calibrated accordingly. In most variations of project delivery models, the roles and responsibilities of the architect are similar, but the participation of the builder varies greatly. Up through the late 1970s, most projects were built under what was then known as a “traditional” delivery approach. Now termed as “design-bid-build,” this approach assigns each player a clear, well-defined role. The owner hires and pays the architect to provide design services; the architect develops and places a set of contract documents into the construction marketplace for competitive bid; the general contractor assembles a collection of sub-trades and submitted bids for the project; and, in most cases, the lowest general contractor bidder is awarded the project. The contract for construction between the owner and the contractor incorporates the architect’s construction documents (including the drawings and specifications) plus an agreement to build the design for the bid price, which is the basis for the contractor’s selection. Variations in project delivery approaches in the design and construction industry appeared in response to the desire by owners to optimize specific outcomes beyond lowest first cost. For example, the high cost of borrowed money during the credit crunch of the late 1970s accelerated typical construction schedules, catalyzed the creation of construction management, and gave rise to the increased use of fast-tracked schedules. The need for speedier project completion required not a single construction sequence but multiple individual packages that were bid as their design was completed, resulting in the asynchronous construction of individual project pieces in the field. In response, some general contractors marketed their services as “construction managers” adept at controlling these complex projects. The liability crisis of the 1980s—characterized by an explosion of lawsuits—pushed architects further from job site responsibilities and pressed new risks on contractors, who in most cases were willing to assume such responsibilities in exchange for everlarger pieces of the overall design-construction fee. As projects became more complex and failures became more dangerous and expensive, owners needed in-depth construction advice during design that architects were unwilling or hesitant to provide. Frequent and acrimonious disputes between architects and contractors, often fought out in court, led owners to consolidate design and construction responsibilities under a single entity. Large construction projects like hospital and airport renovations, which needed to operate during construction, required sophisticated management and construction planning beyond the capabilities or interests of architects and created new roles for professional program managers. The building enterprise has evolved to include an even broader set of constraints and expectations that involve increasingly complex building forms, prefabricated construction subassemblies like curtain walls, integrated building control systems, and rapidly accelerating requirements for sustainable design. Building professionals have also realized that, despite extensive experimentation with delivery approaches, the outcomes of most construction projects remain unpredictable at best, and that traditional roles and responsibilities of the players bear further scrutiny. A new class of delivery models known today as “integrated project delivery” has emerged, which posits closer collaboration and open sharing of information between the key constituents of the building enterprise, underpinned by the power of Internet-based digital design information and technology that uses “building information modeling.” All in all, projects are ever faster, riskier, and involve far more participants than those of even 20 years ago. Choosing an appropriate delivery model is often the key to success—or the source of failure. 509 PLAY E RS I N T H E P RO JE C T D E L I V E RY P R OC E S S Regardless of how they are structured, all delivery methods involve three elemental parties: owner, architect, and contractor. Their discrete roles, expertise, and expectations are described in Figure 9.1. The Owner The owner (or client) initiating a building enterprise is usually the eventual owner or operator of the finished building. The owner can be an individual, organization, or other entity that has initiated a design project. For purposes of understanding delivery methods, the owner is the entity that holds one or more contracts with the architect and contractor and is responsible for making payment to these participants. The owner is also responsible for paying for the construction of the building. An owner’s expertise in design and construction can vary widely, usually in proportion to the breadth and complexity of projects the individual or company has undertaken. Owners generally have similarly broad expectations of the other players in the process. The Architect PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y The architect is the licensed design professional who, acting as an agent for the owner by providing architectural expertise, generates a design concept for the project. While the specific role of the architect varies greatly according to delivery method, it is the architect who designs, documents, and administers the contract(s) for construction of the project. The “architect” can be an individual or a firm and may contract with consultants such as engineers who augment and support the design effort. In all delivery methods, the architect generates documents that describe the design intent. The contractor uses these documents to build the building. FIGURE 9.1 Relationships of Project Participants 510 Design Project Delivery Design Team Consultants While architects are broadly experienced in the various subdisciplines necessary to complete a project, they typically contract with a wide array of specialty engineers and other consultants, depending on the scope of the project. On all but the most straightforward projects (like small private residences) the architect will subcontract responsibilities for structural and mechanical/electrical/plumbing engineering, and may require other services from additional engineers (such as geotechnical engineering) or special consultants (such as lighting, acoustics, or code/life safety for complex projects). In addition, the owner may bring specific consultants to a project to augment the overall project team, most commonly constructability assistance by construction managers, attorneys, or other consultants. It is important to understand and define the role of every consultant on a project. ▶ Project Team Agreements (17.2) further discusses the agreements that result when architects form teams to pursue projects, engage consultants, or establish joint ventures with other firms. The Contractor Subcontractors, Fabricators, and Suppliers Like the architect, the contractor requires an array of subcontractors to complete a building project. Since most contractors do not self-perform the vast majority of the work, they contract with (thus the term “contractor”) necessary companies, tradespersons, suppliers, and fabricators that are then coordinated by the contractor to achieve the built project. Typical subcontractors might include structural steel assembly, sheet metal and systems installers, curtain wall suppliers/installers, sheetrock and interior finishes subcontractors, and electrical subcontractors. Larger projects can have tens or, in the largest project, hundreds of such participants. Other Par ticipants Although different in each project, other key players in the process must have explicit relationships to project. Regulatory agencies (like building or zoning officials), external constituents (like local property owners), lending entities (like banks), and even local community groups may affect the project and should be understood in the context of the overall project structure. And while having no defined role in a project structure, the architect’s obligation to protect the public’s health and safety makes all users of a project—whether affiliated with the client or just walking through the halls—an implicit “client” of the job. PR O G R AM M AN AG EM E NT Some large, complex projects have multiple building elements and complicated sequencing. One example is construction of a new airport terminal, with associated roadways, garages, and airfield, adjacent to existing facilities that must be kept in continuous operation. For such projects, an owner may elect to hire a “program manager” to oversee and coordinate the project. Program managers support the owner’s interests and, for all practical purposes, are the owner in some cases. Such services are usually provided by large construction management entities; however, some architects have now begun to provide program management services. KEY VARI A BLES AFFEC TIN G D E LIVE RY C H OIC E Once only the cost of construction drove the delivery approach of every project: With little exception, the contractor submitting the lowest bid was selected. Other methods have emerged to optimize, other key variables to drive the selection of a delivery approach. These include construction cost, schedule, quality, risk, and owner capabilities. A correlation of driving selection factors for various delivery methods can be found in Figure 9.2. Construction Cost As the owner’s greatest financial obligation for a project, construction cost is frequently the central concern of design and construction. Buildings are very expensive, and 9.1 Project Delivery Methods 511 PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y The contractor is responsible for the actual construction of the project. Typically known as the “contractor” or “general contractor,” the contractor’s team may include a variety of subcontractors, suppliers, and fabricators who together execute the design intent of the architect’s documents. The contractor typically agrees, at a prearranged point in the design process, to construct the project for an agreed-upon sum. The determination of that moment and the resulting responsibilities of the contractor is one of the key differentiators of various delivery methods. FIGURE 9.2 Characteristics of Project Delivery Methods PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y owners rarely have infinite funds with which to pay for them. Fixed budgets create clear and definite obligations for the architect and the contractor. Meeting those budgets is a high priority for every member of the project team. Schedule Most projects include a time frame in which the project must be complete and ready to occupy. When a building’s primary function is critical to an owner’s mission, meeting a precise schedule may be the most important consideration in determining how a project will be built. Examples of such situations include academic projects, which must be synchronized with the academic calendar, or performing arts centers that schedule events years in advance. Schedule compliance (and acceleration) is critical when interest rates are very high and capital for building is scarce, as even small delays raise the cost of construction financing dramatically. Orchestrating the design process with a specific schedule may include not just meeting a final deadline but also choreographing design deliverables with intermediate approvals and construction milestones. Building Quality ▶ Bidding and Negotiation (10.8) covers the processes involved in selecting a contractor. The demand for particular standards of performance in systems, finishes, enclosures, and other building elements is directly related to decisions about schedule and construction cost. The architect typically establishes a clear relationship between a project’s level of quality, budget, and program, where an increase in one parameter may imply a change in another. An owner may be willing to accept lower levels of quality to save construction cost or to allow a project to be completed in a shorter period of time. Conversely, projects with long anticipated life spans (e.g., civic or institutional buildings) may emphasize levels of quality for which construction costs and schedules must be calibrated accordingly. Sustainable design considerations—a building’s relationship to the environment, particularly its long-term use of energy and indoor environmental performance—are a significant component of its planned quality. Establishing a common understanding among project participants about all such levels of quality is critical to successful delivery. Project Scope Rarely is the project scope completely understood or precisely fixed during the course of a project. A building’s characteristics are never completely resolved until its 512 Design Project Delivery completion. Until that time, its scope—the combined characteristics of size and quality—may be indeterminate and the services provided by the architect must acknowledge this inherent ambiguity. The project’s scope is successively refined during design, and subsequently during preparation of shop drawings and then in actual construction. Changing conditions, usually comprised of changing owner demands, market conditions for materials and construction trades, and even unexpected site or existing conditions on the project site, will affect the project scope as it unfolds. Delivery models should explicitly acknowledge the relative fixity of the project scope. ▶ Defining Project Services (15.1) addresses the centrality of scope definition to developing effective agreements for professional design services. Risk • For the owner: Can the project accomplish its goals within the constraints of time and budget? Does the owner have the capability to understand the project and support the decisions necessary to complete it? • For the architect and the architect’s consultants: Can the project be accomplished within the standard of care at an acceptable level of quality, within the owner’s parameters, the architect’s own capabilities and skill, and the strictures of the fee? • For the contractor and the contractor’s subcontractors: Is it possible to complete the project within a contractually stipulated time frame and/or cost, given market conditions, availability of subcontractors, and the contractor’s experience and capabilities? ▶ Risk Management Strategies (16.1) discusses how to first know one’s risks, and then how to manage them. Client Capabilities The internal capabilities of a client organization can significantly affect the roles the client, architect, and general contractor play. The degree to which design, documentation, construction administration, and management are outsourced, as well as the relative importance that each team member plays, frequently depends on the strengths, weaknesses, and preconceived notions of the owner. Owners may have substantial construction experience and in-house capabilities to understand and participate in a project, or may be embarking on their very first project as a client. Their preconceived notions may also affect the roles and responsibilities of the project participants. Each has a different relationship to delivery approach. Project Team Capabilities While any architect who participates in a project must meet the standard of care, levels of experience and capabilities of the team may vary by project type. Teams with greater degrees of experience and confidence in a particular type of project may be more comfortable with more complex, aggressive, or experimental delivery models. Generally speaking, teams with less experience should adhere to well-understood, standard models and associated typical contracts. MET HODS OF PROJEC T DELI VERY The relationships and responsibilities of the players and how they will share information, combined with an explicit understanding of construction cost, schedule, level of quality, and resulting allocation of risk, together define the project delivery method. The characteristics that identify a delivery method can be defined by answering questions for the following issues: • Driving factor: What is the most important outcome driving the project for the owner—cost, risk, quality, or schedule? • Architect’s role: What are the responsibilities of the architect, and how do these apply to each successive design and construction phase of the project? 9.1 Project Delivery Methods 513 PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y Risk is perhaps the most intractable variable in the building process. Players in the project make their best efforts to manage, reduce, or transfer their exposure to liability as the project unfolds. Key risk considerations include the following: • Contractor’s role: Who is responsible for building the project, and when in the process is that player selected? • Establishment of construction cost: When is the actual cost of construction definitively established contractually between the owner and the contractor? • Number and type of design and construction contracts: How many individual contracts for design and construction are necessary to accomplish the project? ▶ Integrated Project Delivery Overview (9.3) details methods that enable project stakeholders to share, to varying degrees, the risks and rewards involved in design and construction. Answers to these key questions, combined with an explicit strategy about cost, quality, schedule, and risk, provide the information necessary to select and implement a project delivery approach. Delivery models are typically based on one of three typologies: design-bid-build, construction management, or design-build. A fourth typology, integrated project delivery, is now evolving and discussed elsewhere in the Handbook. Design-Bid-Build PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y Once known as the traditional approach, this delivery method involves a linear design sequence that results in a set of construction contract documents against which contractors submit fixed price bids. In design-bid-build approaches, the lowest-bidding contractor whose proposal responds to the requirements of the contract documents is usually selected to build the project. Many projects in the United States are constructed under this approach, and many of the business models that drive the construction industry, including contracts, fees, and risk management strategies, are derived from the design-bid-build method. A variation of design-bid-build is the “negotiated select team” approach, in which the contractor is selected early in the design process and certain contract terms (such as overhead and profit multipliers) for the contractor are determined prior to completion of the construction documents. Subcontractors are then selected and the final contractor team is assembled once the construction documents are complete. The final contract amount for construction is determined based on the final documents and calculated using the pre-negotiated terms. Selected portions of the building that may be particularly difficult to fabricate or construct may be accelerated under “negotiated select team.” Another variation of design-bid-build method is known as “cost plus fixed fee.” In this approach the contractor is selected at the completion of contract documents, but the scope of construction is unpredictable (due in part to unknown factors such as existing conditions). Under a cost plus fixed fee contract, the contractor is paid actual labor and material costs plus overhead for construction for coordination of trades on the site plus a fee that represents a fixed amount of profit that does not vary according to the total project cost, disconnecting the contractor’s profit from any increase in project costs. Added incentives may be added to the fee if the project finishes early or under the original budget. Construction Management ▶ See The Architect’s Role in Construction ManagerConstructor Project Delivery (9.2) for more about CM project delivery. 514 Owners have increasingly demanded detailed construction and technical advice earlier and earlier in the design process. The building community has accommodated this need by creating the field of construction management. The construction manager (CM) can play one of three roles: • CM Adviser: The CM as adviser acts only as a constructability and cost management consultant to the owner during the design and construction process, but will not build the building. CM-adviser projects can be delivered under any of the methods previously described. • CM-Agent (CM-A): The CM as agent provides early consulting and may act on behalf of the owner in assembling and coordinating the construction trades prior to and during construction. CM-agents typically provide their services for a fixed fee Design Project Delivery and assume no risk for the actual construction costs themselves but pass on both savings and overruns directly to the owner. • CM-Contractor (CM-C): The constructability and cost adviser role of the contractor during the project’s design G U AR A NT E ED MA X I M U M PRI C E ( G M P ) phase transitions at a predetermined moment to the A P PR O AC H ES TO C O N ST RU CTI ON traditional role of design-bid-build contractor for the M A NA GE M EN T project. CM methods of delivery frequently include the use of a “guaranteed maximum price,” or “GMP,” which In the past, the establishment of a guaranteed maximum is a commitment by the CM-C to build the project for price (GMP) suggested a commitment by the owner and a specified price based on early design documents (typCM-contractor to a construction cost based on partially ically those available at the end of design development). complete design documents. The price established was This places the CM-C at risk for the construction cost understood to account for the “risk” inherent in using of the project. An inherent difficulty in CM-C arrangethese documents. Many CM-based projects now invoke a ments stems from the CM’s dual role as contractor and GMP as an evolving cost target for the project but sustain it through the completion of construction to maintain estimator, as cost decisions made early in design directly flexibility with the owner about the final cost of a project. affect the CM’s cost (and profitability) later in construcIt might be argued that a GMP, carefully developed and tion. Owners considering this approach should be aware refined based on construction documents, is actually a of this fact. Design-Build Architect-Led Design-Build and Architect as Construction Manager for Small Firms and Small Projects. This delivery method provides the owner a single-point responsibility for both design and construction. The design-build method sprang from clients’ growing dissatisfaction with the inherent tensions and conflicts of delivery approaches that place architects and contractors in adversarial roles. Under design-build, a single contract is ▶ Contractor-Led Design-Build established between the owner and the design-build entity having both design and (9.4) further discusses traditional construction capabilities. Typically, that entity is a contractor with the architect as a design-build project delivery. subconsultant for design services. This contract typically includes a fixed price for both design services and construction cost. Design-build approaches require an explicit D E SIG N S EQ U EN C E determination of the roles and responsibilities of the The typical phasing of a design-to-build process includes design-build team. standard phases of design resulting in a single package An interesting issue in design-build projects is the of construction documents. The emergence of fast-tracked mechanism by which the owner establishes and enforces construction in the 1970s changed this approach. Most the performance and quality parameters of the project, a projects today, however, are under significant schedule role typically assumed by the architect as an agent for the pressure, and the typical linearity of design phases—SD, owner separate from the contractor. A variation on the DD, CD—is fast giving way to hybridized approaches consolidated approach of design-build is “bridged designwhere bid packages for individual building components build,” which is derived from project teams that include are generated based on their schedule requirements or both a design architect (who establishes the design conother market constraints. Irrespective of delivery model, cept) and a production architect (who determines technical projects rarely operate in a strictly linear fashion. There criteria and generates the construction contract docuis some speculation that, as integrated project delivery ments). methods and digital design technology become better These two architects work in concert to develop and understood and adapted, typical design phasing may execute the design, as follows. The fi rst is a design give way to new definitions of design deliverables and architect who prepares a preliminary design for a project sequencing and phasing. building and establishes, typically through a performance 9.1 Project Delivery Methods 515 PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y “hard bid.” Care should be taken to understand and In general, the construction management industry define this term when it is used to describe construction presents itself to owners as an essential project contributor cost commitments after the design development phase. when complexity, schedule, or commitment to budget objectives are critical. Because it is rare that one or more of these issues are not important to a project’s success, construction managers are involved ▶ For more on architects as in many large building projects. However, architects with sufficient experience (and constructors, see Architect-Led willingness to expand their work) are increasingly offering construction management Design-Build (9.5) and the services. accompanying backgrounder, PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y FIGURE 9.3 Sequences and Key Decisions by Project Delivery Method specification, detailed criteria to which the ultimate design must conform. The completed design concept and criteria package (typically based on design development drawings and specifications) are then issued to design-build teams that offer both technical architectural and construction capabilities who bid on the work. The “bridge” between concept and technical design is the juncture at which design-build teams bid on a project, and a team is selected based on the consolidated costs of technical documents and construction. The design architect remains in an advisory role to the owner, reviewing and critiquing the evolving design and construction based on the design and criteria package. The technical architect who is part of the design-build team provides detailed technical documentation for construction. This approach takes maximum advantage of a traditional architect-owner relationship with the participation of the design architect and simplifies the contractual responsibilities of the design-build approach. It might not be suited, however, to projects that require extensive interaction between the architect and owner during the entire design and construction process, since a portion of the design team is contractually tied to the building contractor. OTHE R D E LI V E RY MOD E L S The construction industry is increasingly coming to grips with the challenges of delivering results with predictable outcomes. Too often projects fail to meet expectations of budget, schedule, or quality, three factors the architects must carefully balance as they guide the owner through the design and construction process. The project delivery models described above, and in more detail in other articles in this chapter, have evolved in part as attempts to address these challenges, each optimizing a different project variable or player capability to yield better results. 516 Design Project Delivery Some interesting variants are emerging worldwide that exhibit “integrated” characteristics but don’t follow the exact strictures of IPD as commonly defined. Among them are privately financed initiatives and project alliances. Privately Financed Initiatives In Great Britain, consolidated design, construction, development, and building operation teams compete to deliver and operate completed buildings for extended periods as long as 50 years. The architect is one member of such teams. Owners pay a yearly fee in exchange for the use of these buildings. Many health care projects in the United Kingdom are using this model, notably when the government’s Health Services does not wish to spend capital on building construction and operation. The build-operate-transfer model in Canada is a similar model. In the United States, developers are creating “lease-leaseback” arrangements, where projects are delivered for a client by a third party and then leased back to the client for a set period, with ownership reverting to the original client after an extended period, often 99 years. There are other variations on private-finance schemes, where private funds for construction of private projects have evolved as alternative financing strategies for projects; such schemes are sometimes, but not always, accompanied by consolidated design-deliver-operate project teams. PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y Design Assist The increasing technical complexity of many projects, particularly those with highperformance enclosure or mechanical systems, demands the early involvement of key subcontractors and fabricators during the design phase. A new model called “design assist” has evolved accordingly, in which shop drawings generated by these subcontractors are incorporated directly in the architect’s construction documents, and the architect is not required to document those systems as traditional “design intent” deliverables. This model purportedly creates more accurate and efficient working drawings, as well as improved cost control and construction operations. Project Alliance Models In Australia, the industry is experimenting with a radical delivery model called Project Alliance in which the entire project team—designers, contractors, and subcontractors—are bound together in a single contract that holds each jointly responsible for the project and rewards all for its success. Of interest in the Alliance model is the requirement that each project member fully support the efforts of the other, since their financial success is tied to mutual cooperation. The owner in these projects establishes measurements of this success—budget, cost, or quality, for example—and rewards the entire team based on how well these aims are achieved. Principles of Project Alliance have strongly influenced the development of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) here in the United States. C ONCL USI ON Like many professionals anticipating the challenges of practice today, architects face increasingly complex decisions that drive the very basis of how projects will be designed and built. Advising owners intelligently about delivery options requires an understanding of the players in the building process and their roles, the key variables that affect the choice of delivery method, and, finally, the range of choices available in the current design and construction marketplace. The other articles in this chapter illuminate in detail the methods of project delivery in common use as of 2012, and methods that are emerging as more frequent choices by owners, architects, and contractors. These include construction ▶ Emerging Issues in Project Delivery (9.7) covers particular project-delivery issues that have arisen in relation to building information modeling (BIM), IPD, and sustainable design. 9.1 Project Delivery Methods 517 management, integrated project delivery, design-build—both architect- and contractor-led—and architect as developer. A new generation of delivery models based on principles of integration is coming into view. To maintain a central role in the building enterprise, architects must strive to understand, master, participate in fully, and, when necessary, invent such methods. The chapter concludes with an article detailing these emerging trends and methods. PA R T 3 : P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y Fo r Mo re I n f or m a t i o n The Handbook on Project Delivery (AIA California Council): http://aiacc.org/resources/ project-delivery/handbook-on-project-delivery/. AIA Contract Documents: http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/index.htm. The Owner’s Dilemma (Greenway, 2010) by Barbara White Bryson, FAIA. Managing Project Risk: Best Practices for Architects and Related Professionals Managing Project Risk (Wiley, 2008) by James Atkins, FAIA, and Grant Simpson, FAIA. “Collaboration, Integrated Information, and the Project Life Cycle in Building Design, Construction and Operation, CURT WP-1202 (Construction Users Roundtable, August 2004): http://aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/ aias077892.pdf. BACKGROUNDER T HE NEED FOR INTEG R ATED P ROJECT LEADERS B arba r a J. Ja cks on , Ph. D., DB IA Leading integrated projects and teams requires a unique set of skills and talents. Being an architect, contractor, or engineer does not qualify or prepare a person for leading integrated projects. In addition to discipline expertise, Integrated Project Leaders (IPLs) must possess a disposition for collaboration across disciplines, demonstrating appreciation, enthusiasm, and empathy for what others contribute. Barbara Jackson is a professor of Construction Management in the College of Architecture and Environmental Design at Cal Poly State University. She also serves as director of the Center for Integrated Project Leadership for the Built Environment and is author of Design-Build Essentials (Delmar Cengage Learning, 2010). T HE LEAD ERSH IP IM PERAT IVE The one common denominator among all integrated project delivery approaches is the expectation for the team—owner, architect, and contractor, and others as assigned—to act “as one,” thus capturing the collective knowledge and expertise of the multidiscipline perspective to deliver comprehensive, integrated solutions. Given our industry’s historical segregated services mentality and isolated operational model, achieving such a collaborative, interdisciplinary teaming arrangement is a tall order, and certainly one that is not 518 Design Project Delivery going to happen by accident. It takes a unique leader with unique leadership skills to elicit such results. Unfortunately, these required leadership skills are not readily taught in architecture, engineering, or construction management schools, and yet architects, engineers, and contractors are typically the individuals who are charged with leading these integrated project approaches. Being well trained in the disciplines of architecture, engineering, or construction project management does not usually properly prepare a design or construction professional for the task of leading a multidiscipline team of individuals with different skills and motivations. The challenge is, when bringing this diverse group together to work on an integrated project solution, if each team member only contributes their single-discipline perspectives, it’s very difficult for them to view solutions from an interdisciplinary viewpoint. What tends to happen on many projects is that each individual discipline presses for its own point of view. Architects press for enhanced design, contractors press for budgets and schedules, and each party may feel threatened by the other’s point of view. While the discipline that is “leading” the team is most likely to succeed in forwarding its approach, the fact remains that the owner wants it all—an integrated solution that enhances design as well as the budget and schedule. An Integrated Project Leader (IPL) must rise above any single discipline perspective and develop a disposition for collaboration across disciplines, demonstrating appreciation, enthusiasm, and empathy for what others contribute.