Structuring the method of procuring and delivering design and construction services is a critical first step. The available options seem at times to be overlapping, and aspects of project delivery remain confusing even for some sophisticated owners. I have been involved in advising capital facility owners on project delivery options for more than ten years. Going back even farther, to the 1990s, I was involved in industry-wide efforts to better define and explain project delivery alternatives. Starting with a manual called the Client Advisor, compiled and published jointly by the Boston Society of Architects and the Massachusetts AGC chapter, I have participated in industry-wide efforts to better explain the elements of each project delivery alternative. In the past fifteen years, I have been involved in two updates to a textbook published by AGC of America, Project Delivery Systems for Construction.
Speaking and writing about a topic are one thing, but the critical point is that my advice is based on many years of working with clients who use different delivery methods, from hard-bid solicitations based on a complete design, to private sector CM-at-risk and public-sector CM/GC, to design-build (in both private and public sectors). While not yet personally involved in an integrated project delivery project, I have been a student of IPD, and have worked with clients to obtain the benefits of using elements of project delivery that are common to IPD, but on projects using a different delivery method.
Having participated in industry committees and task forces, I am also familiar with the current trends in the evolution of project delivery methodologies, and the impact of technology on those alternative approaches.