Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Facilitating Building Information Modelling (BIM) using Integrated Project T

Delivery (IPD): A UK perspective
Poorang Piroozfara,b,*, Eric R.P. Farrb,c, Amir H.M. Zadehd, Sonia Timoteo Inacioe,
Steven Kilgallone, Ruoyu Jina
a
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, UK
b
NoNames Design Research and Studies, 1249 F Street, San Diego, CA, 92101, USA
c
NewSchool of Architecture and Design, 1249 F Street, San Diego, CA, 92101, USA
d
Kier Group, Platinum House, Sussex Manor Business Park, Gatwick Road, Crawley, RH10 9NH, UK
e
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brighton, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, UK

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The Construction industry is a major player in the UK economy and is in need of continuous improvement. In an
Building information modelling attempt to do so, in 2011 the UK government made Building Information Modelling (BIM) level 2 a mandate for
Integrated project delivery all public projects by 2016. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a project delivery approach closely attributed to
Project delivery methods BIM. However, it does not seem to have received proportionate level of attention and uptake in the UK. The
BIM implementation
research into reciprocal impacts of BIM and IPD are few and far between and non-existent in the UK construction
IPD facilitation
context. This research investigates if and how IPD can facilitate BIM implementation in the UK. Capitalizing on
relativist ontology, the study uses a mixed methodology to gauge industry experts' perception of the barriers to
BIM implementation and uptake and the barriers to what constitutes IPD principles based on what has been
found in the literature. The research findings support the hypothesis that IPD does help overcome barriers to
collaboration, improve early involvement of the key participants and enhance the level of trust among key
stakeholders; thereby helping eliminate the barriers to implementation of BIM. The research has also identified
the main barriers to implementing IPD, which if overcome, could improve construction performance in terms of
cost, time, efficiency and productivity in the UK by defragmenting parties through its multi-party agreement
structure, facilitating BIM, enhancing parties’ early involvement and collaboration through its inherent BIM
contractual principles. The findings suggest that IPD can facilitate better and wider uptake of BIM in the UK
construction industry.

1. Introduction well known and rehearsed, yet despite that, there appears to be a col-
lective reluctance or inability to address these issues and set a course for
The construction industry is one of the major sectors of the UK modernization”. In this regard, lack of value for money, time/budget
economy as it contributes over £90 billion to the economy and offers overrun, unreasonable running and maintenance costs, unfitness for
2.93 million jobs provided by more than 280,000 companies [1]. This purpose, lack of skilled labor, and lack of standardization added by
sector has experienced a decrease in the UK's gross value added (GVA) need for more off-site prefabrication to improve integration and co-
from 8.9% in 2007 to 6.7% in 2011 as it was disproportionately affected ordination between design and construction are just to name a few.
by the recession in 2008 [1]. Worryingly enough there is a recurring Construction projects face many issues of which some seem to have
pattern in the UK construction industry which, although frequently been caused by the delivery models. This has resulted in the industry
picked up by several independent studies or task force commissions yearning for alternative procurement methods, where a more colla-
[2–4], it does not seem to have been acted upon. Following upon what borative culture can replace and improve the fragmented nature of the
started over two decades ago, more recently Farmer's report (2016) industry.
asserts: “Deep-seated problems have existed for many years and are In April 2011, the UK Government mandated Building Information

*
Corresponding author. School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, UK.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Piroozfar), [email protected] (E.R.P. Farr),
[email protected] (A.H.M. Zadeh), [email protected] (S. Timoteo Inacio), [email protected] (S. Kilgallon),
[email protected] (R. Jin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100907
Received 27 August 2018; Received in revised form 28 May 2019; Accepted 27 July 2019
Available online 07 August 2019
2352-7102/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

Fig. 1. Bim maturity levels.

Modelling (BIM) Level 2 for all public projects in the UK by April 2016. design and methodology section will be tested. The result analysis will
BIM Level 2, was described by Bew and Richards, in their 4-level (0–3) be followed by discussion of findings and concluded in the last section,
BIM maturity model (Fig. 1), as “collaborative BIM”, where federated concluding comments where some recommendations for future re-
information models will be shared within a Common Data Environment search will be provided.
(CDE).
The fact that this technology has the ability to satisfy the need for 2. Literature review
improved communication between stakeholders has led to it receiving a
lot of support from a number of sources [5–7]. Integrated Project De- 2.1. BIM: barriers to implementation
livery (IPD) was introduced in the US [8] to form a construction
paradigm that targeted the improvement of the project cost, time and Scott et al. [11] define BIM as a modelling technology and asso-
quality over traditional procurement systems. The American Institute of ciated set of processes to produce, communicate, and analyze building
Architects (AIA) emphasize that although BIM can be implemented in models. BIM is a tool for collaboration and a tool to integrate our
most of the procurement systems, it would be in its best usage if it is fragmented building industry. BIM is also a process that allows project
implemented within IPD [9]. Existence of BIM and IPD show the op- stakeholders to collaboratively manage the fundamental building de-
portunity to shift from the traditional to modern paradigm as a result of sign and data in a format that is understandable for all participants from
their advanced function and strength of cooperation [10]. early stages of the project and throughout its life cycle [5,12–15].
The UK construction industry has made numerous attempts to im- Thompson et al. [15]; p.50) mention BIM characteristics as: “plug-ins,
prove collaboration amongst key stakeholders and to reward high reports, 4D and 5D models, clash detection, direct fabrication control,
performance teams, such as encouraging partnering. The advancement facilities management”, and eventually BIM as a contract tool. A
of IPD and its coupling with BIM could suggest, in theory, that potential number of scholars have claimed that the main barriers to BIM im-
improvements can be introduced in this regard. Despite progresses plementation are the lack of a BIM contractual document and the issues
made in introduction, implementation and acceptance of BIM – which around the implementation and use of BIM as a collaborative frame-
inherently thrives on collaborative working processes, there is very work ( [5,7,16–19] [15]. The issue of BIM implementation or its use
little evidence to suggest that a proportionate adoption of IPD (in re- includes the question of who is responsible for design, who owns the
lation to BIM or otherwise) has taken place in the UK construction in- copyright, who has the intellectual property rights, who should develop
dustry. Furthermore, there is no such evidence to support that there is a and operate BIM and how the cost of implementation would be dis-
move in that direction or that a sensible change in the existing profile of tributed or shared, etc. Azhar et al. [7]; Bernstein and Pittman [20] and
prevailing procurement methods in the UK has or is set out to emerge. Ku and Taiebat [17] agree with these issues of implementation and
With this brief introduction, a number of questions will arise such claim that BIM implementation is faced with barriers of interoperability
as: what are the barriers to implement BIM in the UK building con- issues, lack of [corresponding] technology, lack of skillful trained per-
struction industry? Will IPD help eliminate barriers to BIM im- sonnel and finally lack of collaboration. Most of the mentioned barriers
plementation in the UK building construction industry? If IPD is taken have solutions through IPD [21] which seems to make the two innately
up to, how can it facilitate the implementation of BIM? The aim of this inseparable.
study is to investigate the possibilities and limitations for IPD to facil-
itate BIM implementation in the UK construction industry. In order to 2.2. IPD nomenclature and concept
achieve this aim, a hypothesis has been developed to find out if IPD
facilitates BIM implementation, that is: “IPD facilitates overcoming BIM Initially coined by an air-conditioning company in 2005, IPD started
implementation barriers”. emerging in practice when AIA introduced the first IPD contract in
To fulfil the aim of this study and answer its research questions, this 2007. It appeared as a new delivery system with the potential to pro-
paper starts with a critical review of literature to identify the barriers to vide better performance through more supply chain integration [22].
BIM implementation, nomenclature, concept and principles of IPD and AIA California Council (2007 [23]: p1) defines IPD as, “a project de-
finally to couple BIM and IPD through review of the state-of-the-art. livery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures and
The factors identified will then be used to design the research instru- practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and
ment which will have two different but not mutually exclusive sections insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to
to cover both quantitative and qualitative components of this research. the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiency through all phases of
This will be discussed in more details under research design and design, fabrication and construction.” IPD has been defined as an al-
methodology section. Then data collection and analysis will be elabo- ternative contractual agreement among at least three main project
rated on where the hypotheses which were formulated in research parties i.e. client, designer and contractor, that:

2
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

• is highly collaborative among these team members [8,11,16,23–26]; [9]. Early involvement is also suggested to be the cure for the frag-
• mandates the use of BIM with integrating technology into contract mentation problems that the industry is faced with and prevent in-
[24,26,27]; efficient work practices and costly changes that occur late in the con-
• facilitates high-performing teams by aligning the team incentives struction phase [16]. Scott et al. [11] and Lé; vy [30] believe that one of
and goals; the most important principles for a successful IPD process is open,
• improves Value for Money (VfM) for the clients ([12,27] by tar- honest and enhanced communication between groups, consequently
geting waste, inefficiency and adversarial relationship that Archi- eliminating the segregated roles of traditional contracting processes,
tecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry is faced with ( which will result in increased value to the client and reduces the
[8,28]. amount of construction waste. Although there are some disagreements
regarding the order and importance of these principles, all are com-
Risks and rewards are shared between project members and success ponents of IPD, regardless, and have to be accounted for in order to
of the parties is tied to the project success in IPD [15,25]). They argue implement IPD successfully.
that IPD was brought out to make better projects, faster for less. IPD can To summarize, to obtain the maximum benefits of IPD, there are 9
also create incentives for exceptional results, reduce operational and vital principles that have to be implemented in order to increase ef-
maintenance costs of the finished project, improve project delivery fectiveness and to facilitate better collaboration. These principles are as
timelines, and reduce waste through better planning and shared costs follows [8,9,12,16,25,29]):
[16]. However, with hindsight, it should be noted that IPD is not pre-
scribed as a panacea for all problems. Research suggests although IPD • Multi-party agreement
may have advantages over other procurement methods in certain pro- • Mutual respect and trust
ject types/sizes, smaller and less complex projects may yield different • Mutual benefits and rewards
results [22]. • Collaborative innovation and decision making
• Early involvement of key participants
• Early goal definition
2.3. IPD principles
• Intensified planning
• Open communication
The MacLeamy Curve [9] illustrates the benefits of the fundamental
principles of IPD (Fig. 2). Design changes late in the project have a
• Organization and leadership
bigger cost implication. The time spent on design in IPD is longer than These principles are all necessary for a successful collaborative
in traditional contracting, due to complexity of IPD projects as more genuine IPD (as opposed to what was called ‘IPD-ish’ by Sive and Hays
disciplines are involved and integrated to develop design solutions [26]. It is broadly acknowledged that among these principles, ‘mutual
more comprehensively [9,26]. respect and trust’ and ‘early involvement of key participants’ are the
This approach to formulate design solutions is achievable by in- most important principles of IPD [8,9,11,12,16,26,29].
tegrating information and data management horizontally, vertically
and temporally in order to improve collaboration, communication,
coordination, and decision support [14]. Fish [29] states that IPD 2.4. Coupling BIM with IPD
projects encompass the notion of ‘early’. Scott et al. [11] also advocate
the same principle because of the importance of project parameters that There is consensus in the literature that BIM is the essential feature
have to be established early. It is in the earliest stages of the project that of IPD and it is IPD that facilitates the use of BIM effectively for building
decisions are most effective, hence it is during these stages that the construction [11,16,18,23,26,27,30,31]. IPD relieves the barriers to
participants' knowledge and expertise combination is most powerful implement BIM as it removes the contractual and responsibilities

Fig. 2. The MacLeamy Curve [9] (Used with written permission from AIA California Council).

3
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

separations, consequently improving the collaboration environment in order to facilitate the barriers to implement BIM. To investigate this
that BIM implementation necessitates [7,15]. IPD and BIM are con- hypothesis, a multiple-regression test was carried out between the
tributory, and mutually facilitate and strengthen each other [15]. Jones barriers to BIM implementation, as dependent variables, with factors
[32] investigates IPD and BIM to maximize design and construction pertaining to IPD, as independent variables, to find out the embodied
considerations regarding sustainability and concludes that BIM is an correlation among these variables. In order to gain a deeper under-
essential tool and the inevitable future of the construction industry – standing of the relationship between BIM implementation barriers and
probably beyond the intended scope of the research. It is however, IPD factors, the hypothesis was broken down to three sub-hypotheses
widely agreed upon that utilization of BIM will improve collaboration, where each IPD factor was tested against BIM implementation barriers
reduce waste and errors, facilitate exploration of alternatives and using Spearman's rho correlation coefficient to measure the association
sharing information, improve construction scheduling and streamline between the two. The level of significance for this test was set to 5%
the design and construction of the project [13,18,31]. BIM has been the (a = 5%), to achieve a statistically significant Spearman rank-order
point of emphasis for IPD as it provides a virtual design before the correlation which means that, if the null hypothesis were true, there is
actual construction begins which enables the project stakeholders to see less than 5% chance that the strength of the relationship found could
the building clearly [11,26,30]. AIA and AIA California Council [9] have happened by chance.
agrees and further reinforces the idea by suggesting that BIM enables
reuse of information as much as possible. There is no doubt that it is 4. Data collection and analysis
possible to use BIM and IPD separately, but it is the coupling of the two
that mutually facilitates the effective utilization of the other. 4.1. Data collection

3. Research methodology and design The data collection instrument was designed in form of a ques-
tionnaire (please see supplementary materials). It was piloted with two
This study deploys a relativist ontological approach as there is a academics, two practitioners and two post-graduate taught and re-
notable body of knowledge that suggests that the AEC industry is not search students and then checked for research ethics from both pro-
static but constantly changing due to both external and internal factors. fessional practice and academic research viewpoints. A Judgmental
A mixed methodology was therefore deemed the most appropriate for sampling [36] procedure was used to choose professionals with con-
this study. A mixed methodology, which stems from a pragmatic ap- sideration of their expertise, proficiency and experiences. A non-
proach, reflects a relativist ontology which accepts that there are random stratified sampling [36] process was conducted online via
multiple forms of reality [33] and that individual theories are not suf- LinkedIn as a professional networking website and the Yahoo group Co-
ficient as worldviews are not static and are influenced by social con- operative Network of Building Researchers. This allowed for a purpo-
ditions [34]. This further justifies the use of both quantitative and sive and targeted selection of professionals and stakeholders of building
qualitative data allowing for triangulation. Triangulation is the con- construction projects and particularly the IPD project's core group
vergence of the data and consequently adds rigor, breadth complexity which consists of clients, consultants (PM, CM, architects, designers,
and richness [35]. etc.), contractors, suppliers and manufacturers [13]. Groups of profes-
Considering the chosen methodology, in order to obtain a rigorous sionals were identified through the website and each group description
understanding of the relationship between different procurement was checked in order to find the ones that best align with the purpose of
methods that have been utilized in the UK construction industry, and to this study. In total 58 quality responses to the questionnaire were re-
find out whether BIM lays the foundation for the UK construction in- ceived over a three-week period. Due to the fact that there are no means
dustry to adopt IPD as an ensuing procurement system, initially, a of checking how many members have chosen to see, and pursue the
thorough literature review was carried out aiming to analytically re- survey or how many have opted out before finishing the survey and at
view IPD system to elaborate on its principles, prerequisites, char- what stage, it is very difficult if not impossible at all to comment on the
acteristics, premises and requirements. In addition, the literature re- response rate with certainty. The responses received were all complete.
view also assisted to establish the research question and to formulate They were quality-checked and all deemed valid.
the research hypothesis in order to generate potential questions for the
questionnaire survey. It is worth noting that due to lack of familiarity 4.2. Data analysis method
with IPD in the UK, we had to introduce a new layer of abstraction
which started with a targeted review of literature entitled ‘coupling BIM SPSS was used for data analysis. The data gathered from the re-
and IPD’, followed up on by developing the main hypothesis into ‘the spondents was grouped into two set variables; categorical variables and
operationalized sub-hypotheses’, to ensure that IPD principles are nominal variables. SPSS provided a total score of project satisfaction,
translated into the professional vocabulary commonly used in the UK BIM implementation barriers, level of trust, level of parties' involve-
construction industry. These factors, which will be tested through op- ment and barriers to collaboration variables in order to transform the
erationalized sub-hypotheses, will then be accumulated to conclude on nominal variables to continuous variables. This helps investigate the
testing the main hypothesis of this study. A comprehensive ques- correlation between variables described in each sub-hypothesis by
tionnaire was produced with an aim to gauge the professionals' expert utilizing Spearman's rho correlation coefficient tests and set of multiple-
opinions on the issues that they have to deal with on a daily basis; issues regression tests. Correlation and multiple regression tests are utilized
resulting from the problems and constraints that UK construction in- due to the type of variables, the number of variables and the aim of
dustry faces in terms of procurement systems. The questionnaire was investigation.
also used to investigate barriers that IPD has to overcome to get
adopted by the UK AEC industry and how the principles and drivers of 4.3. Analysis and results
IPD are, or can potentially be, responded to within this context.
Based on the research questions which were formulated after the To begin with, the results of the question aimed at mapping the age
literature review, a hypothesis was shaped to find out the barriers to of the participants indicated that younger generations had a higher
implement BIM in the UK construction industry: response rate. Among the respondents, 66% were 45 years old or under.
This was not far from expected as younger people normally have more
HA: IPD facilitates overcoming BIM implementation barriers. inclination towards newer technologies, systems or methods (Fig. 3).
Also, the respondents were asked regarding their experience in UK
The hypothesis attempts to find out, if the IPD factors are responsive construction industry and results indicated that about 74% of the

4
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

Fig. 5. Level of trust between projects' stakeholders.

Fig. 3. Participants age. The lack of BIM contract was classified as insignificant or very in-
significant by about 42% of the respondents, followed by lack of trust
which was picked up by 35% of participants as insignificant or very
insignificant, while about 31% of participants consented that the sig-
nificance of lack of trust was high or very high. Probably, this can be
explained considering the level of trust in those projects which shows
that collectively about 69% think the level of trust was of neutral to
very low significance (Fig. 5).
Looking at the area of stakeholder involvement (Table 2), while
78% of the participants thought clients had an early involvement in the
design stage, 53% believed that installers had a late involvement. Also
fabricators, suppliers and contractors have been chosen by 50%, 50%
and 44% respectively as the parties with late involvement. It has to be
mentioned that 44% of the respondents had a consensus that between
these parties, it was the regulatory agencies that had no involvement in
the project (Table 2).
Investigating the barriers to collaboration, the results show that
parties’ fragmentation is the most dominant barrier to collaboration
with some significant effect, (somewhat significant and significant) at
Fig. 4. Participants experience. (59%) followed by lack of shared goal and risk allocation method
chosen by 52% and 46% respectively (Table 3).
respondents had 6 years of experience or more and half of the re-
spondents had at least 11 years of experience in the UK construction
industry (Fig. 4). 4.4. Testing the hypothesis
The majority of the respondents were among the consultants
(55.6%), followed by contractors (25%) and clients (15.3%) with To examine the hypothesis that claims “IPD facilitates overcoming
manufacturers (2.8%) and suppliers (1.4%) at the bottom. It can point BIM implementation barriers”, the null hypothesis was developed as
out the fact that suppliers and manufacturers have less involvement in “IPD does NOT facilitate overcoming BIM implementation barriers”,
the project initial development which corroborates that they are less representing three sets of independent variables as level of parties’ in-
interested in the subject. volvement, barriers to collaboration and level of trust. Through SPSS, a
In response to the question that aimed to identify the main barriers total score of each variable was provided in order to transform them
to implement BIM in construction projects, the results indicated that from nominal to continuous variables to help utilize multiple regression
lack of training had the highest ranks of significance with ‘significant’ to test to enter all the independent variables (or predictors) into the
‘very significant’ impact on implementation of BIM (61%) followed by equation simultaneously to find out how much variance these in-
lack of software interoperability and lack of collaboration (56% and dependent variables were capable of explaining with reference to their
50% respectively). Also parties' fragmentation and lack of appropriate dependent variable (i.e. BIM implementation barriers). This offers the
planning were identified as the fourth and fifth most significant reasons opportunity to evaluate each independent variable in terms of its pre-
for those problems (Table 1). dictive power, over and above that offered by all the other independent
variables.

Table 1
BIM implementation barriers.
Barriers Very Insignificant Insignificant Neutral Significant Very Significant

Lack of BIM contract 36.8% 5.3% 15.8% 5.3% 36.8%

Lack of technology 21.1% 10.5% 26.3% 15.8% 26.3%
Lack of training 22.2% 5.6% 11.1% 22.2% 38.9%
Parties' fragmentation 11.1% 5.6% 44.4% 16.7% 22.2%
Lack of software interoperability 12.5% 0 31.3% 25% 31.3%
Lack of collaboration 12.5% 12.5% 25% 25% 25%
Lack of trust between parties 17.6% 17.6% 35.3% 5.9% 23.5%

5
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

Table 2 Table 4
Level of stakeholders’ Involvement in design stage. Descriptive statistics.
Stakeholders' No Involvement Late Early Mean SD
Involvement Involvement Involvement
BIM implementation barriers 19.1905 10.17,654
Client 9.4% 12.5% 78.1% Level of parties' involvement 12.6667 3.03864
Contractor 18.8% 43.8% 37.5% Barriers to collaboration 18.4286 7.39,305
Installers 31.3% 53.1% 15.6% Level of trust 17.5362 6.6453
Fabricators 31.3% 50% 18.8%
Suppliers 25% 50% 25%
Regulatory agencies 43.8% 31.3% 25%
Table 5
Model summary.

HA: IPD facilitates overcoming BIM implementation barriers. Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of The Estimate
H0: IPD does NOT facilitate overcoming BIM implementation bar- a
IPD/BIM .661 .438 .375 8.04503
riers.

Standard multiple regression was used to evaluate how the IPD Table 6
factors’ scores predicted BIM implementation barriers. The assumptions Anova.
of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity were
Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
verified (Tables 4–6 and Figs. 6 and 7).
The variance of IPD factors was significantly related to BIM im- Regression 906.234 2 453.117 170.001 .006b
plementation barriers, F (2,18) = 170.001, p < 0.005 (Table 6). The Residual 1165.004 18 64.722
multiple correlation coefficient was 66% (R = 0.661), indicating that Total 2071.238 20

approximately 44% (R2 = 0.438) of the variance of BIM implementa-

tion barriers can be accounted for by the variance of IPD factors
(Table 5). This result indicates that the null hypothesis has been re-
jected, suggesting that the study can confirm the hypothesis claiming
that IPD facilitates overcoming barriers to implementation of BIM.

4.5. The operationalized sub-hypotheses

In the next step, for better understanding the relationship between

IPD and BIM implementation barriers, three sub-hypotheses were in-
troduced, each of which investigates the relationship between each IPD
factors (independent variables) and BIM implementation barriers (de-
pendent variable). In order to do this, the study conducted set of
Spearman's rho correlation coefficient tests in order to investigate the
strength and direction of the monotonic relationship between each in-
dependent variable with the dependent variable.

HA1: there is a relationship between BIM implementation barriers

and barriers to collaboration.
Fig. 6. Normal P–P plot of regression standardized residual 2.
H01: there is NO relationship between BIM implementation barriers
and barriers to collaboration.
HA2: there is a relationship between BIM implementation barriers investigated using spearman's rho correlation coefficient. Preliminary
and level of parties' involvement. analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumption of
H02: there is NO relationship between BIM implementation barriers normality, linearity and homoscedasticity exists.
and level of parties' involvement. There was a strong positive correlation between the BIM im-
HA3: there is a relationship between BIM implementation barriers plementation barriers and barriers to collaboration, r = 0.653, n = 21,
and level of trust. p < 0.05 with high level of BIM implementation barriers associated
H03: there is NO relationship between BIM implementation barriers with high levels of barriers to collaboration. This result will reject the
and level of trust. first null sub-hypothesis and proves the first sub-hypothesis. There was
a weak negative correlation between the BIM implementation barriers
The relationships between barriers to collaboration, level of parties' and level of parties' involvement, r = −0.296, n = 21, p < 0.05 with
involvement and level of trust with BIM implementation barriers were high level of BIM implementation barriers associated with low levels of

Table 3
Barriers to collaboration.
Barriers to Collaboration Insignificant Somewhat Insignificant Neutral Somewhat Significant Significant

Parties' fragmentation 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 31% 27.6%

Lack of trust 6.7% 20% 30% 6.7% 36.7%
Lack of incentives 13.8% 3.4% 48.3% 13.8% 20.7%
Lack of shared goals 10.3% 10.3% 27.6% 17.2% 34.5%
Adversarial relationship 10.3% 10.3% 34.5% 17.2% 27.6%
Risk allocation method 10.7% 3.6% 39.3% 21.4% 25%

6
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

faced with, in terms of using BIM the results are presented in Table 8,
where some of comments were found to be positive (e.g. respondent 5).
Other respondent pointed out collaboration, the very concept BIM is
supposed to enhance. This was very interesting as it seems to be a
“Catch 22” case; a circle needs to be broken into if BIM is to be fa-
cilitated in an orchestrated and systematic manner. Product Lifecycle
Management (PLM) and asset management were raised which are also
expected to be seen as one of the benefits of BIM not necessarily a
hurdle on the way. This may have been raised due to incompatibilities
between the ways in which they are currently practiced as opposed to
what BIM may introduce as a process change to the existing practices
which may require a change management strategy to ensure a soft
transition (Table 8).
Only two participants had additional comments to add to what was
already included in the question on barriers of BIM implementation.
They believed that because “BIM was not practiced at their organiza-
tion” and due to “Poor client organization and leadership”, it is difficult
to implement BIM. The barriers to build trust between projects’ stake-
Fig. 7. Scatter plot 2. holders was investigated in question 12, where by contrast, 12 parti-
cipants chose to share their perception using free text (Table 9).
parties’ involvement. This result will reject the second null sub-hy- While one participant believed there is no barrier to build trust (No
pothesis and proves the second sub-hypothesis. There was a weak ne- 23), many of provided factors were recurring and consistent with what
gative correlation between the BIM implementation barriers and level have already been covered in the Likert scale section of this question.
of trust, r = −0.216, n = 21, p < 0.05 with High level of BIM im- Conflicting interest, arrogance, ignorance, poor organization and lea-
plementation barriers associated with low levels of trust. This result will dership, bad planning, wrong work culture (aggressiveness, humilia-
reject the third null sub-hypothesis and proves the third sub-hypothesis tion, instilling fear), parties’ fragmentation were what the respondents
(Table 7). raised as some of most important factors. The important point is that
some of these barriers are what exactly BIM has set out to address; what
4.6. Qualitative data analysis can be achieved more specifically through its main contractual frame-
work, namely IPD. There seem to be no ground, reason or justification
The survey had a mixed methodology structure and aimed to collect as to why these very factors are now systemically taking an upper
and collate data themed around the following areas: systemic level affecting the implementation of BIM, unless BIM is
widely understood and resorted on merely as a new tool, as opposed to

• General information and background a new environment, a new culture and a new paradigm for which to be

• Difficulties and/or deficiencies that may hinder the project success successful a paradigm shift is inevitable.
When the participants were asked to comment on the reasons for
(with respect to BIM's/IPD's principles)
• Roots of those difficulties and deficiencies inappropriate decision making in projects, some interesting points were

• Potential or envisaged solutions raised (Table 10):

• Additional expert comments to help acquire more insight into the Some patterns in this question were similar to what was observed in
the previous question, which indeed emphasizes the importance of
roots of the difficulties/deficiencies
embarking on BIM and with what the quantitative analysis of this study
While the first theme (questions 1–4) was merely aimed to help showed this can be expedited by fully and completely adhering to BIM's
understand and introduce the research landscape and its participants’ facilitators and more specifically IPD which was shown in this study to
demography, the next three themes (questions 5–31) were used for be one of them. There are obviously some other issues which may not
testing the hypotheses. The last theme, which was covered in questions be relevant to IPD, such as: lack of education, lack of awareness and
9 onwards, was used to provide a means for better triangulations of lack of capability (in case we assume that these are chiefly meant to be
findings. It was also used to investigate more in-depth whether or not exclusive to BIM and do not cover IPD). Interestingly, for respondent 48
the hypotheses of this study hold through when the in-depth qualitative lack of BIM is the main issue to blame for inappropriate decision
data is queried. It is worth mentioning that although almost all ques- making.
tions were allocated a free-text section so that the respondent could add Similar question was asked about the reasons for lack of appropriate
their expert views if they wished so, not all of the questions received planning in projects (Table 11):
same level of follow-ups. In this section we interrogate parts of the Quite expectedly, many reasons given were not far apart from the
findings pertaining to this last theme. ones provided for inappropriate decision making. Some more contract-
Question 9 aimed to find out the difficulties that the projects were related factors included (unnecessary) project fast tracking, time and

Table 7
Correlation between IPD's factors and BIM implementation barriers.
BIM Implementation Barriers

Barriers to collaboration Spearman's rho correlation coefficient .653

Sig. (2-tailed): .001
Level of parties' involvement Spearman's rho correlation coefficient -.296a
Sig. (2-tailed): .026
Level of trust Spearman's rho correlation coefficient -.216
Sig. (2-tailed): .044

a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

7
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

Table 8
Difficulties in using BIM.
Respondent 1: Collaboration

Respondent 5: We found BIM to be very useful and more efficient. It was very useful identifying clashes with other consultants before work started on site
Respondent 31: Communication, subcontractors buy in
Respondent 56: BIM is often regarded as a document management tool. This industry really needs to think about product life cycle management (PLM), leaving a legacy for
asset management
Respondent 58: The system is not user-friendly

Table 9
Barriers to build trust.
Respondent 1: Contractual issues, risk allocation.

Respondent 23: No barriers.

Respondent 24: Very aggressive client, individual ran the project by trying to instill fear of humiliation into each of the consultants and then the contractor.
Respondent 29: Arrogance, bad planning, corporate politics.
Respondent 31: Changes and variations.
Respondent 33: Traditional, professional approach.
Respondent 34: Distance of the project form the head office meaning more local unknown supply chain members.
Respondent 41: Poor client organization and leadership.
Respondent 42: Consultant and the contractor usually have conflicting interest. The other to minimize expenditure and the other maximize profit and protect trade secret.
Respondent 48: Parties' fragmentation.
Respondent 56: Survival, forward workload in the context that contractors measure success in volume of turnover. No one ever considers whether it is good turnover.
Respondent 58: Lack of awareness of the benefits of open-book policy: poor collaboration between contracting parties.

Table 10 making or poor communication (Table 12):

Reasons for inappropriate decision making in projects. For the main reasons behind time and resource wastage in con-
Respondent 8: The lack of a decisive project leader.
struction projects, almost all respondents highlighted one or more is-
sues related to decision making, planning, experience, [inappropriate
Respondent 17: Not having sufficient information or involvement by and ill-defined/ill-executed] concurrent engineering, lack of tech-
construction and supplier teams. nology/training/awareness and overthinking by one party which leads
Respondent 27: Lack of project ownership.
Respondent 28: Different agenda, inexperienced managers.
to unbalanced risk allocation for the others.
Respondent 30: Arrogance, ignorance, ambivalence, stuck in ones ways, Next question aimed to investigate participants’ perception about
resistance to change. the main reasons for adversarial relationships in projects, where lack of
Respondent 31: Pressure from higher management. trust played a major role (Table 13):
Respondent 33: Education, lack of.
Lack of trust, poor communication and poor management were the
Respondent 34: Too much emphasis on risk transfer instead of retention.
Respondent 41: Time allocation to considering options and implications. main reasons either pointed out directly or underpinning other reasons
Respondent 42: Poor planning. directly or indirectly.
Respondent 48: Lack of building information modelling, Lack of earlier The last question with a relatively high qualitative response rate
involvement of key participants. was the one seeking to investigate reasons for lack of communication.
Respondent 56: Politics, lack of capability.
The results are shown in Table 14, below.
Respondents who chose to comment on this question believed that
human resource allocation, unclear agreement (on purpose and func- self-protection, hidden agendas, oversights, lack of education
tions), inadequate incentive, lack of earlier involvement of project (training), lack of trust, work culture and its related issues (e.g. arro-
stakeholders. Lack of knowledge and [proper/proportionate] tech- gance, ignorance, ambivalence, being stuck with ‘old school’ and re-
nology were also very important reasons highlighted. luctant to change, generation gap, etc.) were the most important rea-
With respect to waste in time and resources, the participants who sons for lack of communication. It was very interesting to see how
opted in to answer in free-text format link it to other issues which were different stakeholders see and frame the same issue from different an-
mutually linked to previous aspects e.g. poor planning, poor decision gles and with different lenses. One example of such cases (which

Table 11
Reasons for lack of appropriate planning in projects.
Respondent 8: Lack of knowledge, and technology.

Respondent 17: Pressure on slim teams, for manager to take on multiple projects to “save money”, not having the time to plan.
Respondent 27: They can be summarized as followings: Inexperienced project manager late involvement of contractors Goals and Objectives are unclear lack of appropriate
process.
Respondent 28: Unclear agreement on purpose/functions at outset.
Respondent 30: Arrogance, ignorance.
Respondent 31: Trust and time to review options available.
Respondent 33: Education, lack of.
Respondent 34: Skill sets- i.e. BIM specialists and programmers emphasizing too much on construction milestones and not design completion milestones.
Respondent 41: Time and human resource allocation.
Respondent 42: Unnecessary project fast tracking.
Respondent 48: Inadequate incentive, lack of building information modelling, lack of earlier involvement of key participants.
Respondent 56: Lack of planning.

8
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

Table 12
Main reasons for waste (time and resources).
Respondent 8: Poor decision making by the client, and designers.

Respondent 17: Rushing into concurrent design and build, causes delays and re-work.
Respondent 27: Lack of planning and understanding of organization's resource constrains.
Respondent 28: Poor decision-communication.
Respondent 30: Arrogance, ignorance, ambivalence, stuck in ones ways, resistance to change.
Respondent 31: Collaborative working, pressure from higher management
Respondent 32: Pondering over risk allocation by one party driving too hard a bargain for the consideration of others.
Respondent 33: Lack of incentives.
Respondent 41: Poor planning.
Respondent 42: Poor planning.
Respondent 48: Lack of adequate technology, inadequate training, poor procurmeent route, lack of building information modelling.
Respondent 56: Lack of leadership and empowerment from those who are accountable.

probably will not be flagged in an automated or commissioned text/ BIM and/or IPD or were merely a variation of the recurring concepts in
content analysis) was “being stuck with old school [approach]”, “re- the quantitative sections.
luctance to change”, and “generations X/Y gap”. Correlation between variables of the BIM implementation barriers
and barriers to collaboration is large and positive (r = 0.653, n = 21,
5. Discussion of findings p < 0.05; see section 4.5, Table 7). This can be justified by another
part of the data as well as literature that lack of collaboration is one of
Do IPD principles address the BIM barriers to facilitate its im- the main barriers to the implementation of BIM. The reasons for the
plementation in the UK building construction industry and if so, to what lack of collaboration have been identified as parties’ fragmentation,
extent? lack of shared goals and risk allocation method. The results also state
Analyses of the results support the hypothesis that IPD does address that the elimination of the barriers to collaboration would be facilitated
the barriers to implement BIM in the UK. This is achieved through a through “multi-party agreement”, “risk and reward sharing”, “early
multiple regression test, which indicates that there is a significant re- goals and objectives definition”, “collaborative innovation and decision
lationship between IPDs’ main principles and BIM implementation making” and “open communication”, i.e. the IPD principles. The issues
barriers (see section 4.4 where it was shown that the variance of IPD raised in qualitative section consented the findings in this area, with
principles and BIM implementation barriers were meaningfully corre- lack of communication, lack of common goal and issues related to work
lated, F (2, 18) = 170.001, p < 0.005 (Table 6)). Further analyses of culture being amongst the most repeated ones. Therefore, once its
the correlation between aforementioned variables demonstrate that IPD principles are applied, IPD is able to provide the collaboration en-
has the potential to address some of the key BIM implementation bar- vironment that eases the implementation of BIM considerably.
riers. Literature review revealed that the main barrier to BIM im- Although the results show that there is a low negative relationship
plementation is the lack of a BIM contractual agreement and the issues but with significant p values between BIM implementation barriers and
of implementation and use of BIM as a collaborative framework. Using level of involvement of key participants (r = −0.296, n = 21,
IPD as a procurement vehicle could facilitate a legal framework and p < 0.05; see section 4.5, Table 7) and the level of trust (r = −0.216,
provide the opportunity of eliminating the barriers to collaboration in n = 21, p < 0.05; see section 4.5, Table 7), it may be argued that this
conjunction with improving the early involvement of the key partici- is referring to direct relationships. There are indirect relationships
pants as well as the level of trust between them. Other issues such as the through other barriers such as parties’ fragmentation, inappropriate risk
question of who is responsible for design, who owns the copyright, who allocation and their associated method and lack of appropriate planning
has the intellectual property rights, who should develop and operate and shared goals, which clearly are affected by level of trust. Again this
BIM and how the cost of implementation would be distributed or was confirmed through the comments provided in the qualitative sec-
shared, etc. Could all be addressed within the contractual agreement. tions, which means although its direct statistical recurrence may be a
Moreover, the results of the qualitative section of this research served little bit lower than expected, the severity and impact of it on a case to
its purpose in providing an in-depth and critical insight to what the case basis are by far too significant to be overlooked. These problems
participants believed the problems facing their construction projects would be eliminated through early involvement and trust which are the
were. This showed a clear correlation to what the quantitative part of main principles of IPD. For this reason, IPD has the potential to elim-
this research found as indicated in the analysis section. Although some inate the barriers of BIM implementation by bringing the key stake-
issues were pointed out which may have not been included in the holders early to the project and building trust between them.
quantitative sections, these were either irrelevant to what may concern

Table 13
Main reasons for adversarial relationships between project stakeholders.
Respondent 8: A general lack of trust.

Respondent 17: Lack of trust, misaligned goals and incentives between client, designers and construction team.
Respondent 27: Lack of appropriate communication and leadership.
Respondent 28: Risk management poor and perhaps pricing too “keen” meaning that margins likely to be slim and so need to be enhanced or else protected.
Respondent 30: Arrogance, ignorance, ambivalence, stuch in ones ways, resistance to change.
Respondent 31: Changes to price.
Respondent 33: Vested interests lack of equitable sharing of rewards.
Respondent 41: Poor planning, inappropriate appointments, tight budgets, poor leadership and poor communication.
Respondent 42: Poor communication and the conflicting nature of contracting.
Respondent 48: Lack of trust.
Respondent 56: Lack of common goals, misaligned incentives, peronal objectives of influential individuals.

9
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

Table 14
Main reasons for lack of communication.
Respondent 8: Parties trying to protect their own interests.

Respondent 17: Pressure to get building, not allowing time for considered responses and complex, communication structure, doesnt allow the key trades/supliers to
communicate efficienty. Also client/design team holidays, at key construction points delay problem resolution.
Respondent 27: Lack of stakeholder management and understanding their needs and requirements.
Respondent 28: Hidden agendas, everyone “too busy”.
Respondent 30: Arrogance, ignorance, ambivalence, stuck in ones ways, resistance to change, laziness.
Respondent 31: Oversight.
Respondent 33: Education, lack of.
Respondent 34: Some of the “old school” not being acceptable to change. Gen X is “hands on” and real where Gen Y relies on IT, probably too much and considers
communication to be via IT only.
Respondent 41: Usually time, but often personalities involved.
Respondent 42: Lack of trust.
Respondent 48: Lack of building information modelling, lack of earlier involvement of key participants, lack of trust.
Respondent 56: Not enough time spend in the planning phase, there's always pressure to ‘get on with it’. Too many chiefs, demotivated indians. Personal agendas drive isolated
decision making.

6. Concluding comments and future research Appendix A. Supplementary data

The UK construction Industry is faced with projects that finish over Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
budget, over time, with unexpectedly low quality that leaves the sta- doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100907.
keholders unsatisfied. These shortcomings mainly originate in the in-
herent fragmentation of the industry. The fragmented nature of the References
industry has resulted in correlated deficiencies such as inappropriate
decision making, late or no involvement of the key stakeholders in the [1] A. Rees, M. Barawas, C. Fleetwood, K. Folwell, R. Garrett, I. Hacche, J. Liley,
design stage, and lack of appropriate planning, collaboration, commu- S. Liston, N. Scott, A. Siddique, "UK Construction: an Economic Analysis of the
Sector." Department for Business Innovation & Skills, Department for Business
nication and trust between stakeholders. Innovation and Skills, London, 2013.
Moreover, the aforementioned characteristic and its resulting defi- [2] J. Egan, Rethinking Construction, Department of Environment, Transport and the
ciencies have generated barriers to implementation of BIM and colla- Region, 1998.
[3] M. Latham, Constructing the Team: Joint Review of Procurment and Contractual
boration in the projects. This study demonstrated that BIM is faced with Arrangements in the United Kingdom Construction Industry, (1994) (London).
barriers such as late or no involvement of the key participants, lack of [4] A. Wolstenholme, S. Austin, M. Bairstow, A. Blumenthal, J. Lorimer, S. Rhys Jones,
an integrated BIM contractual document, collaboration and trust. The D. Ward, D. Whysall, Z. Le Grand, Z. Guthrie, R. Davies, Never Waste a Good Crisis:
A Review of Progress since Rehinking Construction and Thoughts for Our Future,
current study has identified that software interoperability, lack of
Constructing Excellence, London, 2009.
training, and resistance to change from traditional to advanced com- [5] S. Azhar, Building information modeling (BIM): trends, benefits, risks, and chal-
munication systems by the professionals, play a significant role in lenges for the AEC industry, Leadersh. Manag. Eng. 11 (3) (2011) 241–252.
[6] S. Azhar, M. Hein, B. Sketo, Building information modeling (BIM): benefits, risks
preventing the projects to implement BIM.
and challenges, Proc., 44th ASC National Conference, 2008.
IPD's most important factors have been identified as early involve- [7] S. Azhar, M. Khalfan, T. Maqsood, Building information modelling (BIM): now and
ment of the key participants, collaboration and trust. Lack of these beyond, Construction Economics and Building 12 (4) (2012) 14.
principles have been identified in the current study as the main barriers [8] R. Ghassemi, B. Becerik-Gerber, Transitioning to integrated project delivery: po-
tential barriers and lessons learned, Lean Constr. J. (2011) 32–52.
to implement IPD which could help improve the UK construction in- [9] AIA, and AIA California Council, Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, AIA,
dustry by defragmenting parties through its “multi-party agreement” Sacramento, CA, 2007, p. 62.
and facilitating BIM, parties' early involvement and collaboration [10] Z. Yang, G. Wang, Cooperation between building information modeling and in-
tegrated project delivery method leads to paradigm shift of AEC industry, Proc.,
through its inherent BIM contractual requirements and other key International Conference on Management and Service Science, IEEE,
principles such as “mutual respect and trust”, “collaborative innovation 2009(MASS '09).
and decision making” and “early involvement of the key participants”. [11] L.M. Scott, C. Flood, B. Towey, Integrated project delivery for construction, Proc.,
49th Associated Schools of Construction Annual International Conference, 2013.
Hence, the industry should address its inherent fragmentation as well as [12] B. Becerik-Gerber, D. Kent, Integrated project delivery and building information
eliminating the barriers to implementation of BIM through addressing modeling on a small commercial project, Proc., Associated Schools of Construction
the issues such as lack of knowledge, software interoperability, training Annual International Conference and CIB Workgroup, vol. 89, 2010.
[13] S. Glick, A. Guggemos, IPD and BIM: benefits and opportunities for regulatory
and advancement.
agencies, Proc., 45th Associated Schools of Construction National Conference,
Building upon the study's findings that IPD can facilitate better and 2009.
wider uptake of BIM; this research recommends further investigation [14] B. Succar, Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery
foundation for industry stakeholders, Autom. ConStruct. 18 (3) (2009) 357–375.
into the IPD system to find out if it would work in the UK construction
[15] C. Thomsen, J. Darrington, D.D. Dunne, W. Lichtig, Managing Integrated Project
industry framework. One of the limitations of this research was the Delvery, Construction Management Association of America, McLean, VA, 2009.
restricted timeframe within which data collection had to be carried out. [16] D.C. Kent, B. Becerik-Gerber, Understanding construction industry experience and
If this restriction were not in place, it could have been expected that a attitudes toward integrated project delivery, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (8) (2010)
815–825.
higher number of respondents would have participated in this research. [17] K. Ku, M. Taiebat, BIM experiences and expectations: the constructors' perspective,
To add yet another complementary angle to this research, another al- Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 7 (3) (2011) 175–197.
ternative data collection instrument in form of a face-to-face interview, [18] A. Porwal, K.N. Hewage, Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering frame-
work for public construction projects, Autom. ConStruct. 31 (Supplement C) (2013)
could have been added to this research to enhance the depth of this 204–214.
research and further substantiate the findings of the quantitative and [19] A. Redmond, A. Hore, M. Alshawi, R. West, Exploring how information exchanges
qualitative sections. Also more targeted investigation based on each can be enhanced through Cloud BIM, Autom. ConStruct. 24 (Supplement C) (2012)
175–183.
stakeholder group could have been carried out; subject to sufficient [20] P.G. Bernstein, J.H. Pittman, Barriers to the adoption of building information
number of participants in each group. This could have appended more modeling in the building industry." Autodesk Building Solutions Whitpaper,
subject-specific results to help develop a deeper understanding of dif- Autodesk Inc, CA, 2008.
[21] AIA, AIA Minnesota, and School of Architecture University of Minnesota, IPD Case
ferent parties' perception of the correlations between IPD and BIM. Studies, AIA, 2012, p. 267.

10
P. Piroozfar, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100907

[22] H.A. Mesa, K.R. Molenaar, L.F. Alarcón, Exploring performance of the integrated 26 (3) (2006).
project delivery process on complex building projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (7) [29] A. Fish, Integrated Project Delivery: the Obstacles of Implementation, MSc, Kansas
(2016) 1089–1101. State University, Manhattan KS, 2011.
[23] AIA California Council, Integrated Project Delivery - A Working Definition, Version [30] F. Lévy, BIM in Small-Scale Sustainable Design, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J, 2012.
2, AIA California Council, Sacramento, CA, 2007. [31] J. Conrad, Examining potential of integrated project delivery." Air Cond. Heat.
[24] Autodesk, Mproving Building Industry Results through Integrated Project Delivery Refrig. News, (2013).
and Building Information Modeling, I, Autodesk whitepaper, Autodesk, CA, USA, [32] B. Jones, Integrated project delivery (IPD) for maximizing design and construction
2008, p. 12. considerations regarding sustainability, Procedia Eng. 95 (2014) 528–538.
[25] T. Cox, M. Kenig, M. Allison, S.W. Kelley, M. Stark, Primer on Project Delivery, The [33] N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln, N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Introduction: the
American Instute of Architects and The Associated General Contractors of America, Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative
Washington DC, 2011. Research, Sage, Thousands Oaks, 2017.
[26] T. Sive, M. Hays, Integrated Project Delivery: Reality or Promise, Society for [34] T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press,
Marketing Professional Services Foundation, 2009. Chicago, 1962.
[27] P. Raisbeck, R. Millie, A. Maher, Assessing Integrated Project Delivery: a com- [35] U. Flick, An Introduction to Qualitative Research, SAGE, London, 2002.
parative analysis of IPD and alliance contracting procurement routes, Proc., 26th [36] R. Fellows, A. Liu, Research Methods for Construction, Blackwell Science, Oxford,
ARCOM Annual Conference, 2010, pp. 1019–1028. 2003.
[28] W.A. Lichtig, The intergrated agreement for lean project delivery, Constr. Lawyer

11