Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-020-00251-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Integrated project delivery (IPD) method with BIM to improve

the project performance: a case study in the Republic of Iraq
Mahdi Swadi Salim1 · Ahmed Mohammed Raoof Mahjoob1

Received: 9 January 2020 / Accepted: 24 March 2020

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract
Design-build, design-bid-build and construction manager at risk are conventional approaches of project delivery and have
many restrictions in the construction industry. To overcome these restrictions, in recent years, Integrated Project Delivery
(IPD) has appeared as an approach to deliver the projects. IPD is a delivery approach in which the owner, designer, and
constructor work together collaboratively to create a project from the initial stages to deliver and operating the building.
Building information modeling is the best tool for creating a virtual model being used more often in conjunction with tra-
ditional delivery methods. The early involvement and collaboration characteristics of the IPD approach can enhance the
coordination of BIM technology. In this paper, the researcher will identify the status of using IPD and other traditional
methods in the Republic of Iraq. It also indicates the most important area when using the IPD method obtains the benefits of
using this method and investigates how this system related to BIM technology. A questionnaire form was distributed, then
collected and analyzed statistically. The results indicate that 83.33% of the respondents used the traditional methods, while
16.66% was used the IPD method.

Keywords  Integrated project delivery (IPD) · Building information modeling (BIM) · Traditional delivery methods

Introduction approach with BIM technology relatively is a new approach

The traditional methods of project delivery, such as design-
build and design-bid-build, are the most commonly used in
projects despite the problems in using these methods such as
lack of coordination between the planning and construction
stages. These traditional methods are still used in conjunc-
tion with building information modeling.
A modern delivery approach barely emerged in recent
decades called Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) to bridge
the gap between the phase of the project and this method
different from the traditional approaches mentioned ear-
lier, where it has more benefits and advantages (Mihic et al.
2014). One of its main advantages is that it involves all the
major parties from the early stages of the project, which
enhances the advantages of BIM technology. Using IPD
to the design and construction stages of the project (Justin
Neil 2015). In this study, the IPD method will be focused as
well as the relation of IPD and BIM technology. The objec-
tives of this research will be:
• Identifying what is an IPD method and its principles.
• Analyzing the status of using the IPD and traditional
approaches in the construction industry.
• Identifying the obstacles and motivating factors that
motive using IPD method.
• Identifying the benefits and requirements of BIM tech-
nology that met with the benefits and requirements of
IPD method.
• Identifying the organization and operating system used
in the projects.

* Ahmed Mohammed Raoof Mahjoob
ahmed.mahjoob@coeng.uobaghdad.edu.iq
Mahdi Swadi Salim
m.salim1001@coeng.uobaghdad.edu.iq
1
Civil Engineering Department, Construction Project
Management, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
In this paper, a literature review for the traditional deliv-
ery and integrated project delivery methods are briefly
explained, as well as the building information modeling
and the relationship between BIM and IPD are described.
Finally, the statistical analysis for the results of the question-
naire and the conclusion have been presented.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Literature review
The traditional methods of project delivery
It is generally recognized that the construction industry is
fraught with inherent shortcomings. These problems can
be attributed to the fragmented nature of the industry in
their operations and the lack of coordination and commu-
nication between the parties in the supply chain. So, the
degeneration of design and construction activities along
with the adversarial contractual relationships among pro-
fessionals make it difficult for construction teams to pro-
vide effective value to the client (Uthman 2011).
There are three commonly traditional approaches to pro-
curement. The Design, Bidding, and Build (DBB), in which
constructors are not created until the design is almost com-
pleted, and the “explosion” is where the constructors strug-
gle to understand the design and make it buildable and try to
compensate for its limits (Mossman et al. 2010).
Another traditional approach was design-build (DB), in
which the contractors participate in the project early, so
there is some integration and increased cooperation com-
pared to design-bid-build. However, there are still prob-
lems with this approach. Under the conventional design
and build, the customer usually participates through the
completion of the design and then seeks to reduce input
and participation to protect the responsibility of risks. As
a result, opportunities for improvement of projects and
innovation are reduced (Justin Neil 2015).
While Construction Manager at Risk (CM) has the same
contractual agreement as DBB and early cost commitment
such as the DB method. CM at Risk is a method of pro-
ject delivery in which the “construction manager is hired
early in the process to deliver an early cost commitment
and to manage issues of schedule, cost, construction, and
building technology” (AIA 2007). This approach is closely
related to IPD but still does not include the contractual
relationship and trust required in IPD.
Finally, four major systemic problems have been
identified with conventional delivery and contractual
approaches: (1) the disruption of good ideas; (2) contract-
ing limits on cooperation and innovation; (3) lack of coor-
dination; and (4) pressure for local improvement at project
expense as a whole. All these problems could be reduced
or settled by using IPD.
Definition and principles of integrated project
delivery approach
Many works defined what IPD means; however, the defini-
tion that is commonly circulated in various publications
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
is from the American Institute of Architects AIA (2007)
which is IPD as a project delivery approach that inte-
grates people, organizations, business structures, and
exercises into a process that collaboratively harnesses the
talents and insights of all project participants to optimize
the results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and
maximize efficiency through all stages of design, manu-
facturing, and building. This definition supports that IPD
differs from other delivery approaches in the fact that early
and continuous cooperation among all parties involved in
the process of design and construction is necessary. Coop-
eration can result in a better final product for the owner,
where all participants are invested in the project and work
toward common goals (FISH 2011). Figure 1 denotes the
contractual relationship of IPD.
Principles are necessary to carry out the business effec-
tively, and the construction industry is no exception. There
are nine basic principles required to make IPD more effec-
tive. If all these things are implemented and used together,
the better collaboration will be created, which in turn will
result in better production of the project in design and con-
struction (FISH 2011). The American Institute of Archi-
tects & AIA California Council (2007) and Becerik-Ger-
ber and Kent (2010) are adopted the nine principles of IPD
as below:
• Mutual Respect and trust.
• Shared Risk and Rewards.
• Collaborative Innovation and Decision Making.
• Early Involvement of Key Participants.
• Early Goal Definition.
• Intensified Planning.
• Open Communication.
• Organization and Leadership.
• Multi-party Agreement.
Building information modeling (BIM)
Building information modeling (BIM) is an intelligent 3D
model-based process that is more efficient and effectively
Fig. 1  Integrated Project Delivery approach (AIA 2007)
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
used by architecture, engineering and construction profes-
sionals for planning, designing, constructing and managing
buildings in an efficient manner (Arunkumar et al. 2018).
BIM considers a management and communication tool for
all the stakeholders in the project because it contains all digi-
tal information that the project needs from the beginning to
the construction and operations so it can create a center for
information on the project by BIM. Design and construction
quality, communication and cooperation between stakehold-
ers can be improved by collaboration models (Mahjoob and
Abed 2017). In fact, BIM is demanding for cooperation to
get the benefits of this technology to the participants. Using
this technology has immediate and obvious benefits (Glick
and Guggemos 2009). Also, model simulations made by
BIM help to plan constructability, operations and mainte-
nance, where simulations can be made for different factors
for the model such as costs, energy consumption, traffic, traf-
fic lights, and traffic guidance. Despite the various benefits
that BIM has for the construction industry, it causes some
challenges for the company if it is not ready for implementa-
tion (Abbasianjahromi et al. 2018).
BIM and IPD
Although IPD can be used without BIM technology, BIM’s
enabling benefits are significant. The demands of owners in
the industry are forced to use of BIM and IPD. The construc-
tion industry was more demanded by the owners, including
the attention to use digital models for improved decision
making; eliminate the use of the (Request For Information)
RFIs during construction by improved contract documen-
tation; improved the estimating during preconstruction;
improved procurement; accelerating and scheduling and
also improved coordination of the project during the design
and construction phases; improved cost-efficiency through a
value-based approach and using of laser scanning and digital
models to improve closeout documentation. Drivers for the
bigger use of BIM and IPD include: turning toward the glo-
balization of supply chain product in the construction indus-
try, the necessity for increasing productivity in construction
and the subsequent low-profit boundaries. In addition to the
desire for greater sustainability and the need to decrease the
environmental impacts of construction and the increasing
complexity of the building process (Wright 2011), BIM tool
complements IPD methodology and vice versa. BIM facili-
tates the integration of information and provides a single
storage and retrieval platform of data, and IPD provides a
framework for integrating the common objectives and values
of project participants. IPD does help overcome obstacles to
improve early involvement of the key contributors, collabo-
ration, and increase the level of trust among key participants,
thus helping eliminate the obstacles to BIM implementa-
tion (Piroozfar et al. 2019). The impact of BIM/IPD on the
Project Performance Measures
Cost/Profit
BIM
Schedule
Design & construction Return on investment
process
Safety
Productivity
IPD
Relationships
Fig. 2  The integration model of BIM/IPD (Ilozor and Kelly 2012)
aspects of the construction process has been presented in
Fig. 2 which represents the integration model of BIM/IPD.
Research methodology
In order to achieve the objectives of this research, a closed
questionnaire was designed by the researcher. The question-
naire form designed electronically by using (Google Drive
™) as well as use the word software for the hard copy. The
electronic copy distributed for the remote audience by using
many applications (Linked-in, E-mail, WhatsApp, etc.)
while the hard copy for the closed audience.
Based on previous studies of the IPD approach, twenty-
six questions were formulated in the questionnaire form,
which subdivided into three parts but did not present all
these questions in the statistical analysis. The first part was
about the personal information of respondent, the second
part includes the questions about the implementation of
integrated project delivery (IPD) system, and the last part
consists of questions about the organizational and opera-
tional systems used in the projects of respondents. At the
end of the first part, skip question was used. The respondent
who did not use the IPD system in his/her project will skip
to the third part. The questionnaire also included questions
containing multiple options, in which the respondent could
choose more than one answer for the same question. After
the questionnaire was distributed, it was then collected and
analyzed the answers statistically by using some methods to
data analysis such as Runs test, reliability and validity test;
finally, the results were obtained.
Statistical analysis
One hundred questionnaire forms have been distributed (30
electronic copy and 70 hard copies). Fifty form contains a
skipping term and the remaining forms without skipping
term, which answered by only 32 respondents. This skipping
term was used in order to compare the answers of respondent
13

who did not use the IPD system with the answers of respond-
ents that used IPD system in their projects. Only 19 elec-
tronic and 47 hard copies were filled out. The researcher
excluded one uncompleted hard copy to achieve consist-
ency at its highest level. Thus, the total number of responses
reached 65 to become the response rate of 66%.
Concerning the type of delivery systems used in the
projects of the study sample, this was the skip question at
the end of the first section of the questionnaire. The results
show that 50% of the respondents used the Design-Bid-build
delivery system, 25% for the Design-Build, 5.95% used the
construction manager system, 16.66% used integrated pro-
ject delivery and 2.38% for others. This is normal results
because most public and privet sectors are more used the
traditional systems due to the ease of work and the avail-
ability of engineers for preparing the scope of work and bills
of quantities, in addition to the desire to transfer the risks
to the other party, especially in the Design-Build method.
The runs test for randomness
The runs test is one of the statistical tests used to detect
whether the data set is from a random process or not and
is defined as a series of incremental values or a series of
decreasing values. Sometimes called the (Geary test) and it
considers as a nonparametric test. The runs test is an alterna-
tive method to test autocorrelation in the data. Autocorrela-
tion means that the data are related to its lagged value, so to
check whether the data have a correlation with the lagged
value or not, it can use the runs test for randomness. The
researcher will use the statistical package of social science
(SPSS V.25) for checking the randomness of the data accord-
ing to the following equations (Bradley 1968)
R − R̄
Z= (1)
sR
where R is the observed number of runs, R̄ is the expected
number of runs, sR is the standard deviation of the number
of runs.
The values of R̄ and sR are calculated as follows:
2n1 n2
Z= +1 (2)
n1 + n2
(
2n1 n2 2n1 n2 − n1 − n2
) ance of the entire test.
s2R =( )2 ( ) (3)
n 1 + n 2 n 1 + n2 − 1
where n1 and n2 represent the number of positive and nega-
tive values of the series. The values above the mean consider
positive, while the values below the mean consider negative.
To check the randomness of the data, the researcher will use
the following hypotheses:
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
1. Null hypotheses (H0 ) : The data was in a random pro-
cess, when the significant value > 0.05 OR |Z| < Z1− ∝.
( )
2
2. Alternative hypotheses H1  : The data was not in a
random process, when the significant value < 0.05 OR
|Z| > Z1− ∝.
2
As the results depicted in Table 1, the values of |Z| (Cal-
culated) of all items of the two sets of questions smaller
than the value of Z (Tabulated). As well as the sig. value is
greater than 0.05; therefore we accept the
( null
) hypotheses
(H0 ) and reject the alternative hypotheses H1  , so the data in
the questionnaire was produced in a random process.
The reliability and validity
The reliability is defined as the consistency of all results in a
test, or how the results are consistent with time and accurate
representation of the total population under study is referred
to as reliability. Theoretically, there are some errors in each
test, so there are irrelevant results to the structure you are
trying to measure (Joppe 2000).
While the validity is defined as the questionnaire content
ability to achieve what is intended to be measure or honest
the questionnaire results are. The data does not have to be
validated if it is reliable, maybe the test can be very reliable
but has no validity, but for a test the reliability only is not
sufficient, it must also validate (Joppe 2000). The validity
of the questionnaire was examined by sending it to experts
for evaluation, and then some of their advice was modified
and added.
The most common method for measuring the reliabil-
ity is coefficient alpha or Cronbach’s alpha, which is used
to evaluate the internal consistency of the scales that have
multiple answers. As the value of Cronbach’s alpha closed
to one as the reliability is high. To calculate the reliability of
the questionnaire, we will use SPSS V.25 in addition to the
values of Cronbach’s alpha according to the equation shown
below (Montgomery 2011)
� �
� ∑ 2�
𝜎
r𝛼 =
K
1 − 2i
K−1 𝜎
where r𝛼 is the Cronbach’s alpha, K: is the total number of
test items, 𝜎i2 is the variance of one test item, 𝜎 2 is the vari-
The values of the Cronbach’s alpha are shown in Table 2
for the two questions of multiple answers to evaluate the
reliability. The values of Cronbach’s alpha are considered
reliable if greater than (0.7). Since the values in the tables
are higher than the thresholds of reliability (0.7) and close
to one, such that the maximum and minimum value is 0.855
and 0.845, respectively, for the two multiple questions, so
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 1  The results of the Runs test for two sets of questions

N The questions Calculated Tabulated
|Z| Sig. Z Sig.

Which of the following IPD requirements are met when using BIM in the projects?
1 Involvement of all key participants from early stages 0.967 0.333 1.96 0.05
2 Collaboration during all phases of the project 0.268 0.788 1.96 0.05
3 Mutual understanding with respect to each other’s objectives 1.442 0.149 1.96 0.05
4 Open communication among parties 0.428 0.669 1.96 0.05
5 Mutual trust among the parties 1.236 0.216 1.96 0.05
6 Effective coordination 0.177 0.86 1.96 0.05
7 Clarity of management decisions 1.771 0.077 1.96 0.05
8 Performance evaluations and payouts 0.948 0.343 1.96 0.05
9 Positive attitude of the project participants 0.00 1.00 1.96 0.05
10 Good relational contract 0.193 0.847 1.96 0.05
11 Appropriate technology 0.018 0.985 1.96 0.05
Which of the following benefits of BIM technology are agree with the benefits of IPD methodology?
12 Arrange collaborative meetings based on a shared model and a virtual reality application 0.234 0.815 1.96 0.05
13 Get better quality of design, with less waste, shorter timelines. 1.169 0.243 1.96 0.05
14 Decrease the construction costs. 1.068 0.285 1.96 0.05
15 Increase the value of the project for the owner by making simulations. 1.328 0.184 1.96 0.05
16 Improved contract documentation to eliminate using RFIs and Change Orders. 0.60 0.548 1.96 0.05
17 Faster and more effective processes through sharing and reusing information 0.902 0.367 1.96 0.05
18 Improved preconstruction estimating, procurement, expediting and scheduling 1.442 0.149 1.96 0.05
19 Visualization and fabrication/shop drawings 0.537 0.591 1.96 0.05
20 Facilities management 0.062 0.95 1.96 0.05
21 Conflict, interference and collision detection 0.498 0.619 1.96 0.05

the stability of the answers are available; thus the question-
naire is considered high reliability in addition to validity.
Discussion of the questionnaire results
Implementing of integrated project delivery (IPD) approach
This section includes the questions related to the imple-
mentation of the IPD method. The researcher will make a
comparison between the answers of those who selected the
IPD method with those who selected the traditional meth-
ods. Eight respondents from those who received the ques-
tionnaire forms that include the skip question have selected
the IPD method and six respondents from 32 participants
that received the questionnaire forms without skip question
have selected IPD method too. So the comparison will be
made statistically by using SPSS V.25 between the answers
of 14 respondents, those will be called (group one) and 26
respondents who selected another delivery method and those
will be called (group two).
A. Regarding the presence of a multi-party contract or not
when using the IPD system, the results show that the
respondents who say (Yes) were 64.3% for the group one
and 57.7% for the group two. It seems that the two ratios
are almost identical, which means the second group has
some information about the use of the IPD method in
the projects or it is the same principles used in other
delivery systems.
B. The IPD projects are led either by the core group
(Owner, Designer and Contractor) or by an individual
facilitator. Since the group one have been selected the
IPD system, the highest percentage of them (78.58%)
believe that the core group always lead the IPD projects
while (50%) for the group two. (7.14%) believe that the
individual facilitator who lead the IPD project for the
group one while 11.54% for the group two and 14.28%
say some projects by the core group and others by indi-
vidual facilitator for the group one, while for the group
two was 38.46% as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4.
C. The greatest benefit that will be gained when using the
IPD method was in the construction stage for the group
one (42.86%) as illustrated in Fig. 5, while for the group
two the greatest benefit was (34.61%) at the operation
and maintenance stage, as shown in Fig. 6.
D. The most important areas when implementing the IPD
projects are illustrated in Table 3 for both groups. Since
the group one has selected the IPD system, this selec-

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 2  Coefficient of Reliability for two sets of questions

N The questions Cronbach’s Alpha
if item Deleted

Which of the following IPD requirements are met when using BIM in the projects?
1 Involvement of all key participants from early stages 0.848
2 Collaboration during all phases of the project 0.851
3 Mutual understanding with respect to each other’s objectives 0.845
4 Open communication among parties 0.849
5 Mutual trust among the parties 0.848
6 Effective co-ordination 0.850
7 Clarity of management decisions 0.846
8 Performance evaluations and payouts 0.845
9 Positive attitude of the project participants 0.853
10 Good relational contract 0.850
11 Appropriate technology 0.849
Which of the following benefits of BIM technology are agreed with the benefits of IPD methodology?
12 Arrange collaborative meetings based on a shared model and a virtual reality application 0.850
13 Get better quality of design, with less waste, shorter timelines. 0.855
14 Decrease the construction costs. 0.851
15 Increase the value of the project for the owner by making simulations. 0.847
16 Improved contract documentation to eliminate using RFIs and Change Orders. 0.852
17 Faster and more effective processes through sharing and reusing information 0.848
18 Improved preconstruction estimating, procurement, expediting and scheduling 0.855
19 Visualization and fabrication/shop drawings 0.847
20 Facilities management 0.847
21 Conflict, interference and collision detection 0.849

Fig. 3  The percentage of who

leads the IPD projects for
(group one)

tion means that they have sufficient experience in this
system, so they paid attention to the most important
areas in this approach, IPD contractual principles fol-
lowed by collaborative project delivery. In group two,
the respondents also paid their attention to the same
areas of IPD as group one in addition to another area,
which was (Co-location) that configure the appropriate
environment for cooperation between participants which
consider one of the most important principles of IPD.
E. The researcher in eleven points stated the benefits
that can be achieved when using the IPD method. The
researcher adopted the percent of (50%) of the size of the
study sample as an acceptable percentage to identify the
benefits gained from using the IPD approach. As shown
in Table 4, the same number of benefits was adopted by
the two groups, where nine benefits can be gained from
using the IPD method, with the difference in adoption
of one factor (Decreasing the project schedule) adopted
by the group two while not adopted in the group one.
F. This question is related to the IPD requirements that
can be achieved when using Building Information Mod-
eling (BIM). Also here, the requirements achieved 50%

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 4  The percentage of who

leads the IPD projects for
(group two)

Fig. 5  The percentages of
project stages that benefits from
using IPD method (group one)

Fig. 6  The percentages of
project stages that benefits from
using IPD method (group two)

Table 3  Responses of the area of IPD method of the study sample size, the researcher will be adopt-
ing them. The responses in Table 5 show that the two
N The area of IPD The responses
groups adopted six requirements of IPD with agreement
The group one The group two on five of them. The shared requirements that have been
Number Percent Number Percent emphasized by the two groups are five requirements
(involvement of all key participants from early stages,
1 IPD contractual princi- 8 40% 16 35.55% collaboration during all phases of the project, open
ples
communication among parties, effective coordination,
2 Use of lean construction 3 15% 4 8.88%
system and appropriate technology). In addition to one require-
3 Co-location 2 10% 11 24.44% ment that was concentrated by the group one and not
4 Use of team building 1 5% 4 8.88% select by group two and vice versa. It seems that the
facilitator two groups focused on main requirements of IPD that
5 Collaborative project 6 30% 10 22.22% can be achieved when using BIM technology. This is
delivery not surprising with regards the group one because their
6 Other 0 0 0 0 experience in IPD method, while focusing the group
Total 20 100% 45 100 two on the same five factors meaning that they have
experience in BIM technology and its requirements and

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 4  The benefits of using N The benefits The responses

IPD method
The group one The group two
NO. Percent NO. Percent

1 Increase the value of the project for the owner 7 50% 13 50%
2 Increase the productivity of the project 7 50% 13 50%
3 Reducing the waste in the construction phase 9 64% 17 65%
4 Reducing the cost of the project in the construction phase 8 57% 14 54%
5 Decreasing the project schedule 6 43% 13 50%
6 Getting better quality 9 64% 18 69%
7 Reducing the risks 8 57% 14 54%
8 Reducing the rework during the construction 4 29% 12 46%
9 Reducing the conflict during the construction phase 8 57% 19 73%
10 Decreasing the request for information 7 50% 6 23%
11 Discover the clashes from early stages of the project 8 57% 15 58%

Table 5  The percentage of N The area of IPD The responses

achieved IPD requirements
when using The group one The group two
NO. Percent NO. Percent

1 Involvement of all key participants from early stages 7 50% 22 85%

2 Collaboration during all phases of the project 8 57% 20 77%
3 Mutual understanding with respect to each other’s objectives 2 14% 17 65%
4 Open communication among parties 8 57% 18 69%
5 Mutual trust among the parties 7 50% 10 38%
6 Effective co-ordination 7 50% 13 50%
7 Clarity of management decisions 3 21% 10 38%
8 Performance evaluations and payouts 0 0% 3 12%
9 Positive attitude of the project participants 1 7% 2 8%
10 Good relational contract 1 7% 2 8%
11 Appropriate technology 8 57% 16 62%

their knowledge that these requirements agree with the
requirements of IPD system and its principles.
G. When using BIM technology in the project, some ben-
efits that will be gained are agreed with the benefits of
the IPD method. The researcher presented ten points of
BIM benefits, and as made in two previous questions the
researcher identified the same percentage of the sample
size to identify the benefits that can agree with the ben-
efits of IPD. The results in Table 6 show that the group
one identified six benefits from ten while the group two
has picked five from ten with agreeing between them for
four benefits. These four benefits are (arrange collabo-
rative meetings based on a shared model and a virtual
reality application, get better quality of design, with less
waste, shorter timelines, decrease the construction costs,
and conflict, interference and collision detection). In
addition, two benefits (improved contract documentation
to eliminate using RFIs and Change Orders, improved
preconstruction estimating, procurement, expediting
and scheduling) was identified by the group one and
one benefit (faster and more effective processes through
sharing and reusing information) was identified by the
group two. This means that both groups have the same
experience in BIM technology and group two has the
knowledge that the benefits of BIM are consistent with
the benefits of the IPD method, even though they seem
to have applied BIM in traditional systems.
Organization and operational system of the project
This section contains questions about the organizational and
operating systems used in the projects of the study sample.
Some of these questions require Likert scale and some others
a multiple choice.

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 6  The percentage of BIM benefits that agree with the benefits of IPD method
N The area of IPD The responses
The group one The group two
No. Percent No. Percent

1 Arrange collaborative meetings based on a shared model and a virtual reality application 9 64% 15 58%
2 Get better quality of design, with less waste, shorter timelines 9 64% 23 88%
3 Decrease the construction costs 8 57% 13 50%
4 Increase the value of the project for the owner by making simulations. 6 43% 11 42%
5 Improved contract documentation to eliminate using RFIs and Change Orders 8 57% 9 35%
6 Faster and more effective processes through sharing and reusing information 4 29% 13 50%
7 Improved preconstruction estimating, procurement, expediting and scheduling 7 50% 10 38%
8 Visualization and fabrication/shop drawings 2 14% 5 19%
9 Facilities management 0 0% 3 12%
10 Conflict, interference and collision detection 8 57% 13 50%

A. This question displayed the degree of involvement of
the parties in the project phases. The responses were
provided on five scales Involvement from early stages
(5), Involvement from design stages (4), Involvement
from construction stages (3), Limited involved (2), and
None (1). The arithmetic mean and standard deviation
will be calculated by using SPSS program. The results
in Table 7 show that the degree of involvement for the
parties did not start from early the stages, which differs
with the main principle of the IPD method.
B. The most common tool used by the respondents in the
projects indicates that two-dimensional (2D) technol-
ogy (39.36%), BIM technology (25.53%), 3D modeling
(20.21%), lazes scanning for existing building (7.44%),
4D modeling (6.38%) and (1.06%) for (scheduling) in
(other) category, referring to the tools used in organizing
the project schedule.
C. This question regarding the techniques that used in the
projects of the respondents. Based on the calculation of
arithmetic mean, the results show that the all of tech-
niques (pull planning, pull scheduling, last planner, tar-
get value design, change order management process and
Tracking the project percentage complete) were used
(usually) in their projects, while (sometimes) used for
the technique (set-based design) as shown in Table 8.
This means that non-IPD project used some operating
systems that used in the IPD projects.

Table 7  Calculation percentages of the involvement degree of the parties in project’s phases

N The respondents’ answers
Involved from Involved from Involved from Limited None (1) A.M S.D Status of answer
early stages (5) design stages construction stage involved
(4) (3) (2)

The owner 65 45 8 3 7 2 4.34 1.16 Involved from design

stages
The designer 65 27 37 0 1 0 4.38 0.57 Involved from design
stages
The constructor 65 11 12 42 0 0 3.52 0.77 Involved from design
stages
Owner’s staff 65 26 15 12 11 1 3.83 1.18 Involved from design
stages
Construction manager 65 16 17 28 4 0 3.69 0.91 Involved from design
stages
Key subcontractors 65 4 4 45 6 6 2.91 0.87 Involved from con-
struction stage
The supplier 65 5 6 31 16 7 2.78 1.02 Involved from con-
struction stage

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

D. Concerning the IPD principles that can be used in non- Table 9  The percentage of IPD principles used in the non-IPD pro-
IPD projects. If the organizations are not able to use jects
the IPD method in their projects, they are able to use N The group one
some of the principles of IPD. The researcher adopted
The area of IPD Responses
the percent of (50%) of the size of the study sample as
an acceptable percentage to identify the principles of Number Percent
IPD that can be used in the traditional projects. Table 9 1 Mutual respect and trust 46 71%
shows only three principles from nine (Mutual Respect 2 Mutual benefit and reward 24 37%
and Trust, Collaborative Innovation and Decision Mak- 3 Collaborative innovation and decision making 34 52%
ing, and organization and Leadership) are used in the 4 Early involvement of key participants 29 45%
non-IPD projects. 5 Early goal definition 30 46%
E. In this question, the researcher asks about using the 6 Intensified planning 17 26%
incentive clause in the contract of the respondent’s pro- 7 Open communication 29 45%
jects. Based on the calculation of the arithmetic mean of 8 Appropriate technology 30 46%
the answers, the results show that the contracts (some- 9 Organization and leadership 44 68%
times) contain the incentive clause in respondents’ pro-
jects, referring to there is little incentive to improve the
performance in traditional projects. construction stage. Both groups agreed in two points regard-
ing the most important area when implementing the IPD
projects, where the highest percentages for the contracts and
the contractual principles of IPD as the most important area
Conclusion and discussion for the IPD method. Nine benefits can be gained from using
the IPD method which were (increase the value of the pro-
The research tries to know the current use of IPD in the con- ject for the owner, increase the productivity of the project,
struction industry and know what the relationship between reducing the waste in the construction phase, reducing the
IPD and BIM is. Based on the results of the questionnaire, cost of the project in the construction phase, getting better
only 16.66% of the respondents have used the IPD system in quality, reducing the risks, reducing the conflict during the
their projects, whereas the others used the traditional deliv- construction phase, decreasing the request for information,
ery systems. The respondents who use the IPD system called and discover the clashes from early stages of the project).
(group one) and their results have been compared with the Five requirements of IPD system were jointly emphasized by
results of those who did not use the IPD system and called both groups when using BIM technology (involvement of all
them (group two). key participants from early stages, collaboration during all
A percentage of 64.29% from the group one chooses that phases of the project, open communication among parties,
the IPD system has a multi-party contract while in group effective coordination, and appropriate technology) although
two was the percentage of 57.69%. Both groups agreed with the respondents of group two did not apply the IPD system.
the highest percentage that the core group leads the IPD As the benefits of BIM technology that can be agreed with
project but the lower ratio for group two. The group one the benefits of IPD system, both groups agreed on (arrange
identified that the greatest benefits that can be achieved in collaborative meetings based on a shared model and a virtual
the project from using the IPD system were in the operation reality application, get better quality of design, with less
and maintenance stage, while the group two identified the waste, shorter timelines, decrease the construction costs, and

Table 8  Calculation results of the techniques that used in the projects of the respondents
N The respondents’ answers
Always (5) Usually (4) Sometimes (3) Rarely (2) Never (1) A.M S.D Level of answer

Pull planning 65 21 25 11 2 6 3.82 1.19 Usually

Pull scheduling 65 20 21 14 5 5 3.71 1.20 Usually
Last planner 65 16 26 10 9 4 3.63 1.18 Usually
Set-based design 65 9 14 27 9 6 3.17 1.12 Some times
Target value design 65 22 22 8 6 7 3.71 1.32 Usually
Change order management process 65 21 27 15 0 2 4 0.92 Usually
Tracking the project percentage complete 65 40 20 2 2 1 4.48 0.83 Usually

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
conflict, interference and collision detection). In addition to
three other benefits were identified by the two groups.
The degree of involvement of the parties in the project’s
phases was not from the early stages of the projects. Percent
of 39.36% of the respondents have adopted 2D to represent
project drawings while 25.53% adopted BIM technology.
The pull planning, pull scheduling, last planner, target value
design, change order management process, and tracking the
project percentage of completion were considered as a usual
operating system in the project, except the set-based design,
which was sometimes used. The principles of IPD that can
be used in the traditional projects (mutual respect and trust,
collaborative innovation and decision making, and organiza-
tion and leadership). The contracts (sometimes) contain the
incentive clause in respondents’ projects.
This research provides evaluation for the use of the IPD
method to improve the performance of projects from the
perspective of engineers. Future research can be useful to
evaluate the performance of the IPD method from the per-
spective of owners to promote wider adoption of the IPD
method by them, as they are the decision maker in the use
of this system or other. Case studies of IPD projects may be
helpful also in future research to compare its performance
with the performance of traditional projects.
Acknowledgement  This paper was done in cooperation with the
Department of Civil Engineering- University of Baghdad.
Compliance with ethical standards  ss.co.uk.
Conflict of interest  On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Abbasianjahromi, H., Ahangar, M., & Ghahremani, F. (2018). A matu-
rity assessment framework for applying BIM in consultant compa-
nies. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transaction of
Civil Engineering, 43(1), 637–649. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4099​
6-018-0194-0.
AIA. (2007). Integrated Project Delivery : A Guide. Washington:
American Institute of Architects. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.autco​
n.2010.09.002.
Arunkumar, S., Suveetha, V., & Ramesh, A. (2018). A feasibility study
on the implementation of building information modeling (BIM):
From the Architects’ & Engineers’ perspective. Asian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 19(2), 239–247. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4210​
7-018-0020-9.
Bradley, J.V., (1968). Distribution-free statistical tests. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Becerik-Gerber, B., & David, K. (2010). Implementation of Integrated
Project Delivery and Building Information Modeling on a Small
Commercial Project. https​://cites​eerx.ist.psu.edu/viewd​oc/downl​
oad?doi=10.1.1.705.3757&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Douglas, C., & Montgomery, G. C. R. (2011). In Jennifer, W. (Eds)
Applied statistics and probability for Engineers, 5th edn. United
States of America p 765, ISBN 3:978-0-470-05304-1. http://www.
wiely​.com/go/permi​ssion​s.
FISH, A. (2011). Integrated project delivery: The obstacles of imple-
mentation. MSC Thesis, (Kansas State university). https​://doi.
org/10.1360/zd-2013-43-6-1064.
Glick, S., & Guggemos, A. (2009). IPD and BIM: Benefits and oppor-
tunities for regulatory agencies. In Proceedings of the 45th ASC
National Conference, Gainesville, Florida (Vol. 2, No. 4).
Google Drive™. (n.d.). www.drive​.googl​e.com.
Ilozor, B. D., & Kelly, D. J. (2012). Building information modeling
and integrated project delivery in the commercial construction
industry: A conceptual study. Journal of Engineering, Project,
and Production Management, 2(1), 23–36.
Joppe, M. (2000). The research process. Retrieved February 25, 1998,
http://www.ryers​on.ca/~mjopp​e/rp.htm.
Justin Neil. (2015). The use of an integrated project delivery approach
in conjunction with BIM. MSC Thesis, University of Salford Man-
chester. School of the Built Environment (pp. 1–30).
Mahjoob, A., & Abed, M. M. (2017). Assessing BIM integration with
sustainable requirement for buildings construction (Vol. 6). https​
://doi.org/10.21275​/ART20​17575​6.
Mihic, M., Sertic, J., & Zavrski, I. (2014). Integrated project delivery as
integration between solution development and solution implemen-
tation. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 557–565.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspr​o.2014.03.062.
Mossman, A., Ballard, G., & Pasquire, C. (2010). Lean Project Deliv-
ery—innovation in integrated design & delivery. Architectural
engineering anddesign management, Special issue on integrated
design & development systems. pp 1–28. www.thech​angeb​usine​
Piroozfar, P., Farr, E. R. P., Zadeh, A. H. M., Timoteo, S., Kilgallon,
S., & Jin, R. (2019). Facilitating Building Information Modelling
(BIM) using Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): A UK perspective.
Journal of Building Engineering, 26(May), 100907. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.10090​7.
Uthman. (2011). The process of implementing building information
modelling (BIM) in the UK. Retrieved from Justin Neil (2015).
The use of anIntegrated project delivery approach in conjunction
with BIM. MSC Thesis, University of salford Manchester. School
of the built environment.
Wright, J. A. (2011). Building information modeling and integrated
project delivery: What is the future? In 3rd International Con-
struction Specialty Conference, Canadian Society for Civil Engi-
neering, Ottawa, Canada.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13