Owner's Manual

This section of the guide provides a brief overview of the project implementation and covers several topics to orient your reader before using the guide. The guide itself focuses on selecting the appropriate project implementation strategy aimed at designing and building a facility that maximizes the owner's success. The guide describes the workshop approach to selecting a project delivery strategy and provides an Appendix A template for conducting workshops and documenting the results.

What is an Integrated Delivery Process?

The use of the word "integration" has increased significantly in recent years, but the term is seldom defined. Integration is about combining or coordinating separate elements into a harmonious, interconnected whole or unified system. In the context of the delivery process for a capital project, an integrated delivery process is organizational coordination or a combination of design and construction disciplines to support project objectives. However, an integrated delivery process does not only require a multi-party Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) contract. Evidence from this study suggests that most equity instrument projects are implemented using conventional contract models (design-build-build, site manager at risk and design-build). The realization of the spirit of integration may be taken to some degree in all delivery methods, but the success of implementing integrated practices is probably much greater with certain project delivery strategies than others.

What is a project implementation strategy?

The project delivery strategy is a plan for a high level of structure design and construction services. By selecting a project delivery strategy, the owner makes three key decisions about project implementation: the organizational structure of the main project team; contract payment terms that determine the methods of reimbursement of labor costs; and (3) assembly assembly process. In addition, our research concludes that the owner has a role in developing an integrated team during the project implementation phase, both by encouraging participation in integrated practices and by building consistency among team members. Team integration and team cohesion, which have been identified as key success factors in our empirical data, are often implicit but rarely explicit considerations when initiating an investment project. Descriptions of these decisions and success factors are listed below. Organizational structure: The organizational structure defines the hierarchy of the main project team, playing a key role in establishing lines of communication, defining responsibilities and distributing these responsibilities among members of the project team.

Payment terms for contracts: a significant part of the design and construction contracts is concentrated on payment provisions or the method of reimbursement of labor costs. These terms define the billing requirement, the method of reimbursement (regardless of explicit costs or a predetermined value schedule) and potentially the maximum agreed cost.

Team Assembly Process: Assembly assembly practices, commonly known as sourcing or sourcing, includes an approach to soliciting quotes or quotes, evaluation methods for a potential lead constructor or key transactions, and criteria for selecting a lead design team

Team Integration: From an organizational perspective, team integration is the degree to which members of the core design and construction team are brought together for a single purpose. A highly integrated team will use the expertise of individual team members to add value to the project implementation process.

Team Coherence: The development of group cohesion is the turning point at which newly formed groups transition to an effective team. Demonstrate that highly cohesive teams have compatible personalities, a strong commitment to achieving project goals, and can communicate effectively.

Summary of research results

This guide is the result of a thorough statistical analysis of 204 equity projects. The diversity of the assessment used statistical methods, including the analysis of latent classes and modeling of structural equations, the role of project implementation, team integration and group cohesion in the implementation of building construction projects. The main finding in the research was that the project delivery methods alone (i.e. design-bid-build, site manager at risk, design-build and IPD) did not determine success. Instead, the data showed that successful designs followed detailed delivery strategies that enabled the use of integrated practices and fostered the development of consistency between design and discipline building. Each delivery strategy was a separate combination of the team's organizational structure, contractual payment terms, and team assembly practices selected by the owners. For a more detailed description of the research methodology and analysis used in this study, a reference summary is provided in Appendix A.

Demographics: 204 equity projects including studies were generally completed between 2008 and 2014. As shown in Fig. 1, the projects were geographically distributed throughout the continental United States. Sixty-two percent (62%) were publicly funded and thirty-eight percent (38%) were privately funded. Facilities have been found across all sectors of industry, including retail, accommodation, office, correctional, education, manufacturing, recreation, and healthcare. Design ranged from 5,000 square feet to over 1 million square feet, although approximately sixty percent (60%) was less than 200,000 square feet. Total unit cost for equipment completed ranged from $ 50 per square foot to over $ 1,200. Fifty-five percent (55%) of projects reported unit costs below $ 400 per square foot. These unit costs included both design and construction contracts and were adjusted for regional cost differences and indexed to $ 2014.

Key Success Factors: The development of the main project team was discovered as a significant contribution to the success of the equity instrument design. Composed of owner, designer, main contractor or site manager and the key industry representation of MEPs and structural contractors, the core of the project team has been assessed in two dimensions: team integration and group cohesion. These dimensions were identified as key success factors in this study. Highly integrated teams engaged in practices that brought individuals together, in interdisciplinary interactions. These practices included building collaborative goal setting, information modeling (BIM), designing the collocation charrettes, and the construction phases had a measurable impact on schedule performance. This impact was especially evident in projects with little or no team integration. Seventy percent (70%) of the delayed projects, ie with a 5% (5%) increase in schedule, were below the average team integration level. Very cohesive groups engaged in behaviors promoting a common culture within the Project group. These behaviors, which included team chemistry building, timely and reliable communication, and commitment to project goals were critical to covering the cost and quality of the owner goals Sixty percent (60%) of projects delivered on budget or with savings returned to the owner Moderate or better group cohesion. Likewise, seventy-one percent (71%) of projects where owners expressed satisfaction with the facility rotation process and the overall quality of the construction system reported above average levels of group consistency. These critical success factors were important in understanding the mechanisms by which different approaches to project delivery contribute to project performance.

Project Delivery Strategy Classes: When reviewing the data, the survey found that many owners did not deliver projects according to the traditional definitions of common project delivery approaches (e.g., project-build-bid, construction risk manager, or project build). However, by looking for different combinations of owners, he organized design and construction disciplines, defined the terms of payment of contracts and assembled the main design team, this study revealed five basic strategies for project implementation. Generally referred to as Classes I, II, III, IV, and V, these project delivery strategies have enabled or discouraged the project team to be able to use integrated practices and develop into a cohesive group. Dig. 2 presents the five classes of strategies together according to their potential impact on these critical success factors, based on the front-end decisions related to the implementation of the equity instrument project. Strategies implementations that have enabled strong design teams along both axes to drastically increase their chances of achieving their cost, schedule and quality goals. Eighty-four (84%) projects with V-class delivery strategy achieved, with the highest level of both team integration and group cohesion significant completion on time or earlier. By comparison, only sixty-three percent (63%) of Class I projects, with the lowest reported levels of team integration and group cohesion, boast timely or early completion. At seventy-six percent (76%), the class III strategy, with a moderate team, integration and high coherence were characterized by the highest percentage of projects implemented within the budget or within the budget. Class I was the least likely strategy to meet the owner's cost goals, with only 53 percent (53%) of these projects remaining in the budget. Despite the relationship between delivery strategies and project outcomes in these studies, each project is unique. There is no "fit" all "project delivery strategy that works for any owner or any type of facility, and aligning design teams during the delivery process can be difficult. This is also the reason for the statistics approach used to achieve these empirical results. Out of 204 analyzed projects, three topics emerged enabling critical success factors for team integration and cohesion within the project group:

Early Commitment of the Main Team: Early involvement, not only of the main constructor, but also of critical construction or design assistance, specialized contractors were essential to a successful delivery. Likewise, participation did not end with the interface for designers. Continuous interaction during the construction phase, it was found that, including collocation and increased BIM sharing, maintain a high level of integration beyond design. Seventy-three percent (73%) of the top 40 charts, project execution engaged the developer during or before the schematic design, and fifty-five percent (55%) engaged in specialized transactions on critical systems prior to designing the schematic.

Selecting the Core Team Based on Qualifications: During the assembly of the lead design team, the higher performance designs in this study were not chosen by the prime contractor and key contractors based solely on the bid or bid price. Designing with the most cohesive teams focused more on qualifications and using an interview process to assess the quality of individual team members. The selection was based solely on the price index of the least integrated projects. This group of projects averaged four percent (4%) higher cost increases than projects where the core selection criteria were based on the qualifications of the Project Group.

Transparency in Costing: The use of Open Accounting in contracts during the delivery process has proven invaluable in developing trust within the core project team. While most often found in the original in a construction contract, this transparency has sometimes been extended to key specialist transactions. Designing the use of closed book payment terms an average of two percent (2%) higher cost increases. Closed ledger projects led to less satisfied owners with project turnover. Additionally, permitted contractual conditions for joint risk and reward, through financial incentives or joint management responsibilities were shared when implementing successful projects.

How to use this guide

This guide has been developed to assist owners, their key stakeholders and core project teams in selecting and implementing a project delivery strategy that maximizes their potential for a successful project. The guide and related workshop forms in Annex A discuss the project implementation decisions that the owner and their team must make with respect to their project objectives and constraints. This guide assumes that readers have a basic understanding of the differences in delivery methods and terms of payment for contracts and team assembly processes. Workshop participants can learn about these decisions via the workshop process when facilitated by a competent owner or practitioner. Property owners are the target audience of this guide, but discussions of the factors influencing a successful delivery can prove useful to a variety of stakeholders in the design and construction industries. In particular, the need to extend design integration beyond the interactions between designer and chief engineer, the inclusion of key specialist industries and consultants was a vital factor in the success of the design. Choosing a project delivery strategy is one of the first steps in designing and building a new equity instrument. As this process requires a large number of decisions to be made early on in the project, choosing the most appropriate strategy for project implementation can seem daunting. However, it was research that identified several decision combinations that increase the likelihood of success and streamline the selection process. The steps in this guide follow a logical sequence outlined in Figure 3, designed to assist the owner in selecting the appropriate strategy for the project. First, the owner defines project-specific goals (Define Project Needs). The owner then reviews the possibilities and obstacles at each decision point: organizational structure, contract payment terms, and team processes (Browse Delivery Options). Although each project is unique and many internal and external factors influence project outcomes, careful consideration of these decision points will improve the owner's likelihood of success. Finally, the owner chooses legal or political constraints before choosing the most appropriate project implementation strategy (Choose an Execution Strategy). The task is the main project team implementing and building adaptation to the delivery strategy. These steps provide a structured approach to selecting the optimal project delivery strategy.

1. Define project needs: Assess management and performance objectives Document design summary information (e.g. size, type etc.) Define project objectives (e.g. time, cost, quality etc.)

2. View delivery options: Discuss delivery decisions with attention to integrated processes and team consistency Connect forms to document selection Discuss organizational structure (single and split D&C contracts, lead team engagement schedule) Discuss contractual payment terms for builders and key transactions (open vs. closed book) Discuss team assembly (e.g. selection process and criteria for prior experience etc.)

3. Select a Delivery Strategy: Identify the optimal delivery strategy in line with the owner's constraints Identify the legal and owner's policy restrictions (e.g. public procurement law, employee experience, etc.) Compare delivery decisions with test results (e.g. class IV) Examine consistency in delivery strategy ( e.g. support for goals, critical success factors, etc.) Combine forms to document selection Discuss organizational structure (single and split D&C contracts, lead team engagement schedule) Discuss contractual payment terms for builders and key transactions (open vs. closed book ) Discuss team assembly (e.g. selection process and criteria for advance experience etc.)

Owner's Project Implementation Strategy: - Project Summary - Project Objectives - Etc.

Owners can integrate these steps into their own decision-making process or take advantage of project delivery. Strategic Selection Workshop Templates found in Appendix A of this guide. Electronic versions of the workshop templates are available for download at http://bim.psu.edu/delivery. Our experience suggests these decisions should be made in workshops with key stakeholders. The workshop enables each of the key stakeholders from the owner's organization to participate in decision making; thereby increasing the likelihood of selecting the strategy best suited to the project's needs, and ensuring a shared understanding and alignment with the strategy by the owner team. Workshops should be held as early as possible, preferably at the stage of programming or concept design civic project. A minimum of 3-5 and a maximum of 12-15 people are recommended, but the optimal number will vary depending on the size and complexity of the proposed project. While the size and / or time of the project may limit the amount of interaction, there is still value in the workshop approach, even on the smallest scale. By repeating one or more guiding steps, you can pre-define and facilitate a faster process. However, we recommend that key stakeholders review each step, at least briefly, to ensure understanding of the process. The following sections are organized to support this approach, although you can easily develop and support variations of this workshop.

Choosing a project delivery strategy requires the owner to define a clear set of project attributes and objectives at the start of the process. Each project is unique and developing unique project objectives according to the short process in Figure 4 will support the selection of the most appropriate project implementation strategy.

1.1 Project summary information

Documenting assumptions and known information about the project will provide context for later discussions. The design description should be concise but accurate. This includes landlord requirements for floor space, facility size, funding source, any known risks, potential complexity, initial schedule, and initial budget. Make clear which parts of the design description are known and which parts are based on assumptions. Discuss all assumptions and their credibility with workshop participants. If these assumptions change during the workshop, document these changes and revisit the project goals. Form 1a in Annex A can be used as a template to organize this Information.

1.2 Project goals

Understanding your goals is essential to choosing the right strategy for your project and ultimately to define the success of your project. Therefore, before reaching the goal, set the project-specific goals for the next steps in the guide. Typically, project objectives can be defined in three to five project management themes or expected plant outcomes. Examples of goals are given in Table 1. It should be noted that these goals are long term and should remain consistent throughout the project duration. Form 1b in Annex A can be used to document project objectives.

Table 1: Examples of project objectives

Schedule: ☐ Minimize project implementation time ☐ Finish the project according to the schedule ☐ Accelerate the start of project revenues

Cost: ☐ Minimize project costs ☐ Maximize scope within project budget ☐ Finish the project on budget

Quality: ☐ Meet or exceed project requirements ☐ Choose the best team ☐ Create a meaningful or unique project

Functional: Im Maximize life cycle efficiency ☐ Minimize inconvenience to facility users ☐ Maximize worker and user safety

This section, summarized in Fig. 5, provides a framework for key decisions and considerations for selecting a project delivery strategy. Examples of possibilities and obstacles for each option are given, but the reader should recognize it as opportunities and obstacles may change depending on the design's features, goals and constraints.

2.1 Organizational structure remarks

Project organization is a temporary contractual arrangement in the discipline of design and construction, organized by the owner and with the task of delivering an operational facility. Within the project organization, core team members belong to their parent organization, but have additional responsibility by becoming a member of the project team. The study found that two basic organizational considerations affect the success of a project: (1) design responsibility represented by the use of single construction contracts or the splitting of design and construction contracts; and (2) engagement time, defined as the design stage when the owner hires the lead builder and key specialist transactions. Remember that opportunities and obstacles can change with each individual project. Design Responsibility: Owners, when considering the structure of design and construction services, have two basic options. They may choose to hire a designer and lead builder separately, using either the Project-Build-Build or Construction Manager at risk, or they may choose to combine the solution with a project build or IPD. Timing of Engagement: Research has shown that project success was influenced by the time the lead engineer and key specialist transactions entered the lead design team. The data was broken down into three main timeframes for potential involvement: (1) before the completion of the project schema; (2) after the scheme and before the construction documents; and (3) upon completion or later. By understanding the capabilities and obstacles that are specific to the project, the owner should define the lead developer involvement in the design as well as the key specialist professions. The owner can refine the exact timing when assembling the team, but the documentation of the plan on when each party should be contract is paramount. Specifically identifying specialized commercial contractors whose input into the design process may prove valuable for the purpose of the facility as well as for determining the constraints of when certain parties need to be identified. In Appendix A, Form 2a and Form 2b may be used to document your decisions regarding project responsibility and timing of involvement, respectively.

2.2 Payment terms and notes to consider

Contract payment terms are contractual terms that govern how the owner will pay the core team members for their work. These regulations define the requirements, obligations and responsibilities of the event; project risk allocation; and payment procedures. Key elements include job appraisal, job site measurement, and payment for work upon owner approval. The study showed that the terms of payment for the contract affect the success of the project. The key decision when considering payment terms is cost transparency (i.e. using open or closed accounting). Projects in these studies with greater cost transparency had more cohesive project teams. Risk is at the heart of this decision. In an open approach, the design and construction of the risks, as well as the costs associated with managing that risk, are transparent. In lump sum contracts, the owner and the design team can discuss the risks, but the financial risk mostly rests with the designer and the specialty of the profession. Based on the evidence from our empirical analysis, owners who do not have legislation or rules, the constraints associated with cost transparency would increase the likelihood of project success if so decided by contractual payment methods with greater cost transparency. The possibility of more direct planning and creation of project decisions based on the project's financial risk are supported by open-ended accounting. Transparency of costs: the open book method indicates that the terms of payment are usually cost based, refundable either under a cost plus fee agreement or possibly with a guaranteed maximum of £ Price. In open-ended accounting, team members are paid for the work they complete based on the cost of on-site work plus a fee for the services performed. During the design and pre-construction process, the owner and project team members are openly involved in the costing and project assignment. Closed-end accounting only requires a flat-rate scope for the entire project combined with a schedule of the value of the means of payment. Flat rate contracts reduce the management burden on the owner once the project reaches construction by reducing the accounting effort required on the part of the owner to carry out a detailed cost verification. Understanding the possibilities and obstacles, the owner should determine the terms of payment of the chief builder and influential specialists in specialized trade. This is especially true if the builder and contractors share the contract with the design team. In addition, there may be a transition between open-book mode and closed-book strategies when moving from design to build. In particular, defining the constraint and approach to financial risk management for some parties is crucial. Found in Appendix A, Form 2c can be used to document your preference for payment terms.

2.3 Assembly assembly considerations

As already mentioned, the organization of the project is a temporary contractual arrangement of the project and construction discipline. The owner has many options for assembling the team, from finding a single sole source for the design and / or construction, to opening the design to the lowest bidder. However, most owners have some limitations on how to assemble a team, whether it is legal, policy-based, cultural or functional. The study found that the way owners put together a team contributes to a project's success. The decisions that have proven to be statistically significant in these studies are (1) the inclusion of no-price (qualifying) factors instead of price-only selection criteria; (2) shortlisting instead of open orders; (3) previous experience with the owner instead of the first time projects; and (4) use of the lead designer and key business interviews prior to selection. Selection Process: Owners can use a wide range of methods to select a team from sole source selection to open bidding selection without narrowing down the field. The best project results in our study used a two-step selection process. The first step to narrow down the potential pool of designers or builders on the basis of qualifications was common in successful projects (ie shortlist). The shortlist includes a two-step process by which companies indicate their intentions and provide the required qualification documentation. The first step takes place before receiving the price and / or technical proposal of the team. In the second step, the shortlisted companies are asked to reply with a proposal or offer, according to the final selection criteria. Selection Criteria: The inclusion of non-price selection criteria in the team's practices consisted in: statistically significant impact on the success of the project. Owners typically select designers based on qualifications. In fact, public owners may be legally required to exclude prices when renting a designer. However, owners use the full spectrum of price and non-price factors to hire builders. Non-price factors may include value-added design, a construction management approach, or qualification for the type of work and facility. The study found that owners who used non-pricing factors had a greater chance of success. Past experience with the owner: While this study did not show how owners choose repeating business partners, those owners who worked with the same chief builder on multiple projects were more likely to achieve project goals. Working with the same key project teams for repeated work creates a reduced learning curve and transfers developed relationships that can start projects in a better position to success. In addition, companies that are motivated by repetition will be more likely to find a win-win job than to bring short-term financial benefits first. The interview process: the use of intelligence means the owner uses non-price factors in selecting the lead builder and potentially key specializations. Interviews can range from simple explanations of the application to questions about complex scenarios that the project or a member of the construction team may encounter during the project. The owners in our study who did this interview showed better project success in most project delivery strategies. Understanding the opportunities and obstacles, the owner should define the process and criteria for assembling the project team early in the development of the project. Decisions should focus on elements where the process may be limited. Decisions should also document the criteria necessary to justify the decision publicly or internally. It is extremely important to clearly define the criteria for selecting new team members. Otherwise, especially in the case of qualification-based approaches, owners may find it difficult to contain bias on the part of participants in the selection process. Found in Annex A, Form 2d and Form 2e can be used to document decisions related to the selection process and specific selection criteria respectively. Previous work experience can be documented on form 2f and related to discussions to use the interview process on form 2g.

This section provides guidance on translating the owner's preferences from the previous section in the appropriate project delivery strategy. When exploring options in organizational structure, contract payment terms, and assembly assembly processes, the most common trend is to default configuration to known options. The purpose of this section is to assist the owner in selecting a project delivery strategy that is also compliant with their legal or political constraints and is most likely to achieve project specific goals.

3.1 Identify design constraints

There are owner or project limitations for each project. These can limit or even prevent the use of certain project strategies. Listing these constraints before focusing on a single delivery strategy can greatly enhance the concise selection process, and also focus on discussing where the process can be improved within the defined constraints. Found in Appendix A, form 3a lists the constraints that are related to functional requirements, regulations, policies, and even culture within the owner's organization. The goal of this step is to eliminate these delivery strategies incompatible with your specific projects. While there should be a discussion of at least one to three feasible delivery strategies. These feasible delivery strategies may accommodate your limitations and are candidates for further consideration.

3.2 Defining realistic project implementation strategies

The next step in selecting a delivery strategy is to compare the owner's documented preferences with the organizational structure, contract payment terms, and team assembly process against the list of realistic delivery strategies. Form 3b in Annex A is intended to assist in this comparison. Each of the Five Project Delivery Strategies is defined by a set of owner decisions that shape the design and construction services of a project. The following subsections briefly describe each delivery strategy, with an emphasis on those specific owner decisions that distinguish between strategies.

3.2.1 Class I

Owners using this strategy have separate project and construction contracts. Both the general contractor and the key specialist transactions are selected with an open bid process after the completion of the project. They are selected solely on the basis of pricing criteria for the construction scope. While there were no restrictions on the pool of bidders for the general contractor through prequalification or a two-step process, key specialist transactions were sometimes prequalified by the general contractor. The contract payment terms were a closed book, a flat rate contract for both general contractor and key specialist industries. A class I strategy is best combined with the traditional design offering to build an approach.

3.2.2 Class II

They also have separate design and construction contracts for owners with a class II delivery strategy. However, the site manager or general contractor may also be involved prior to completion of the project during project development or construction finalization documents Some key specialist transactions may also be involved, generally if construction systems require input from construction feasibility or if a specific work package is released prior to completion the entire project. The selection of the construction manager or general contractor and key specialist transactions are based primarily on the competitive price of the developed project. The emphasis is on qualification during assembly of the team, usually with a pre-qualification process prior to bidding or selecting a construction manager or general contractor based on the best value approach. Closed book, lump sum payment terms are commonly used for construction manager or general contractor and specialist professions. The class II strategy best resembles the design bid approach with the involvement of constructors in the design or construction phase of construction documents. Class II could alternately be considered a late-hired construction manager at risk.

3.2.3 Class III

Owners using this strategy tend to stick to separate design and construction contracts. The design manager is often hired very early in the design process, either during or before the schematic design. Key specialty deals are not being concluded so early, but they see an increase in participation (compared to class II) in the design development and construction documentation phases for important building systems and work packages. The construction manager is usually selected through the inquiry process, with an emphasis on qualifications to provide support during the design process as well as to guide the construction scope. Proposals likely include a competitive fee and generic terms, although some owners also use a best value approach which gives some weight to the design range price. Key specialist transactions are selected primarily using a best value approach that combines the price for their scope of work, along with their qualifications and / or technical proposals. The site manager is reimbursed using an open book, cost plus pay agreement, usually with a guaranteed maximum price. Key specialist transactions are compensated through closed book, flat rate contracts, although the open book approach can be applied to the project and converted into a lump sum for construction. Class III strategy best fits the approach threatened by the site manager with very early involvement of the constructor.

3.2.4 Class IV

The class IV strategy is characterized by a shift towards combined project contracts and construction services. The main constructor, whether as a construction company, constructor, designer, a joint construction company or a contractor / subcontractor entity is hired by the owner before the schematic design begins. Key specializations are also involved early in the design stage, usually before schematic design. The number of project teams competing for a project is reduced through a pre-qualification process, and often the team selected using a best-value approach that takes into account the proposed project, qualifications, and competition pricelist. Contract payment terms, both for the main constructor and key specialist transactions, are closed book, lump sum; however, guaranteed maximum price conditions are sometimes preferred by the owner. The Class IV strategy best resembles the flat-rate design approach.

3.2.5 Class V.

Owners using this strategy typically have one design and build contract. This class included IPD contracts and a small percentage of cases where the owner contracted out separately for design and construction services. The primary builder and key specialties are both hired before the schematic and often during the owner's initial design or programming phase. There is a strong emphasis on selection based on qualifications, both as lead constructor and key specialist transactions are selected almost exclusively on the basis of qualifications or qualifications and fees. The price of the work is rarely taken into account when selecting the main design team. The contract payment terms with the original builder and many specialized contractors have worked on an open book basis, usually plus costs plus fee with maximum price guarantee. The V-class strategy best resembles a target-based approach with project build or contract IPD.

3.3 Examine the consistency of the project implementation strategy

The final step in selecting a project delivery strategy is to examine the owner's consistency of delivery preferences with project specific goals, topics found in successful strategies, and critical success factors identified in research. Within a narrow list of feasible projects strategies, owner preferences do not always match perfectly with the specific class discovered in our Research. While the use of a class is not required, these classes represent the most common approaches in our research and support critical success factors. When attempting to complete a delivery, the strategy, the owner and their stakeholders should lean towards decisions supporting these three themes found in the most effective delivery strategies - early involvement of team members, transparent cost accounting and qualifying selection. In addition, critical understanding has value as the success factors associated with each project delivery strategy to consider which ones best support your project goals. Form 3c is included in Appendix A to document this process step.

3.3.1 Critical Success Factors

As mentioned, each project is unique and no single project delivery strategy is the best for all owners or property types. Strategies that developed a strong, core design team - owner, designer, lead builder, and key specialist deals - have had greater success in meeting or exceeding cost, schedule, and quality goals. During the implementation phases, the study also found that the project with higher effectiveness teams participated in the integrated practices and developed into a cohesive group. To develop these relationships, Figure 7 summarizes the statistically significant correlations between project performance scores and the two key success factors for project teams - participation in integrated practices and the development of a cohesive group. After initially defining the delivery strategy, the stakeholder team should review their specific project goals to make sure that the strategy supports the critical success factors associated with these performance outcomes. If… Project specific objectives are therefore more cost or quality focused, the chosen delivery strategy should promote moderate to high group cohesion. If the project-specific goals are more schedule-oriented or timeline-oriented, then the chosen delivery strategy should allow moderate to high involvement in integrated practices. The following sections summarize these two critical success factors that were empirically identified by comparing different levels of project success across 204 projects. It should be noted that when designing the most suitable project, the delivery strategy is critical to enabling project success, project success is never guaranteed. Research has also shown that developing a team of major projects to match the owner's goals does not stop at the decision to deliver the design or assemble the team. It is a continuous process that requires team commitment at all stages of the project.

3.3.2 Participation in integrated practices

Practices that have proven to be statistically significant drivers of integrated teams include increased team participation in the following practices: collaborative goal setting, project characterization, BIM implementation planning, and the co-location of key team members' construction phase. In addition, an increased focus on rich information sharing, implied by a more robust use of BIM content, was critical to early and frequent communication between the main project team. Based on the selected project strategy or the identified constraints, integrated practice in Table 2 shows ways to increase the interdisciplinary interaction within the project team. While the ability to involve the entire core project team may be limited by some delivery decisions, implementing collaboration tools can provide value for the project team. The mechanisms for implementing these tools may vary. For example, if a collocation approach for construction is desired, but the law requires the selection of a low bid of key specialist transactions, the overall contract specification may specify the collocation requirements during the project. If the approach involves delivery in early developer and transaction interaction, you can discuss the details of the colocation approach together at the beginning of the contract Table 2: Recommended integrated practices and their benefits for project teams

Integrated practice Benefits for the project team

Joint goal setting: • Allows entry to the team and nuance of goals for the project • Team participation allows for transparency and alignment of all parties

Design charrettes: • Participation in cha Design rrettes allows for basic design support concepts • Greater participation increases the variety of ideas and the accuracy of the input data at earlier stages

BIM Execution Planning: • Developing a BIM Execution Plan to share design information and the development process • You can use executive sketches or BIM execution plan templates while purchasing to define the project

Increased deployment of primary BIM applications: • Increased BIM Application targeting forces better planning and communication of emerging information • More primary use enables easier targeting of additional applications dependent on the underlying model information.

Collocation: • Shared workspace ensures faster and richer communication between them team members • Collocation additionally allows for the development of team dynamics Project communication

3.3.3 Group cohesion

Developing a cohesive group is essential to bringing together successful project teams. Participation in integrated practices was significantly correlated with the development of more cohesive groups. Consistent behaviors observed in successful projects are described in Table 3. Along with planning the approach to integration, we constantly strive to harmonize the cohesive design team necessary to ensure a successful project. Behaviors most associated with cohesive groups are: joint commitment to achieving project goals, timely and effective communication, and strong team chemistry

Table 3: Recommended Consistency Behaviors and Their Benefits for Project Teams

Behavior in cohesive teams. Benefits for the project team

Commitment to project goals: • Commitment to project goals, rather than individual goals, promotes collaboration • Participation in goal development leads to a feeling of “Ownership” of project team members

Timely and Effective Communication: • Can track live tracking and focus on timely communication, increase awareness and focus, and identify challenges early • Communicate on time with the owner enables the main team to reduce cost increases and improve turnover

High Team Chemistry: • Continuous focus on team development and thoughtful boarding of new team members can enable team chemistry development • Inclusion of key team members in key milestones that may be beyond their specific discipline, can keep team engaged and increase chemistry.

3.4 Maximize integration and consistency in any project delivery strategy

Once the most appropriate delivery strategy has been identified, decisions can be made to maximize integrated practices and group cohesion. Make these decisions early to ensure their inclusion in the project timeline. Particular attention should be paid to the timing of the manager or general contractor involvement in construction and key specialist transactions, steps towards full core team definition, membership selection criteria and contractual approach planning. Delivery Selection Process The strategy is to best match delivery preferences, project objectives and specific constraints an appropriate method of structuring the main project team; however, implementation is in the hands of the owner and their design team. This section explains how integrated practices and group cohesion can be advanced in each of the five delivery classes.

3.4.1 Class I: Low group cohesion, low participation in integrated practices

To improve participation in integrated practices, the thoughtful development of requirements for the introduction, collocation, and use requirement for collaborative process tools such as BIM development of an execution plan through minimal use of a requirement model or planning processes can be built into bidding requirements. These efforts ensure awareness of expectations as well as encourage interaction planning the necessary information exchange and interpersonal interaction between the team to facilitate collaborative interactions. In addition, there should be waiting times for the co-location of design team members during construction to be defined at the beginning of the procurement design

3.4.2 Grade II: Low group cohesion, low participation in integrated practices

In addition to what was previously recommended in Grade I, in order to improve participation in integrated practices when carrying out Grade II strategies, the principal project team should look for opportunities to promote interaction between firms and disciplines. When involved in designing charrettes or BIM, execution planning may not be possible from the start, these practices should be considered through a different lens. For example, a BIM execution plan is not a historical document, but an evolving document - plan how the models will be used to support the design. The plan should be updated when basic construction contracts and key specialist transactions are made. Similarly, construction phase collocation is not exclusive to a single project implementation strategy and may be initiated in any model. However, if they are used in class II, the collocation must be specified as a requirement in the inquiry or tender documents when selecting the design side of the main project team. Likewise, collocation should also be included in the designer's requirements to ensure that designers budget appropriately for the time needed on site. To help develop group cohesion at the core of the project team, the owner should look for methods to improve the chemistry team, commitment to project goals, and the quality and effectiveness of communication. The chemistry of the team can be verified through an interview process, not only from the main constructor but also from the key industries of specialization. In addition, with the involvement of the designer in selecting the lead designer, he can identify positive chemistry, or potential conflicts and cultural differences, between potential team members. After selecting team members, the owner should arrange a kick-off meeting with the main design team to re-evaluate the design goals and processes that should be used to accommodate the team through construction. Communication protocols should be planned in detail. While a written contract often dictates a maximum information request (RFI) and message response times, durations are not always optimal for team communication. Similar to physical or virtual mockups, communication protocols should be tested with each of the key industry specializations and the lead developer. The purpose of testing communication protocols is to test the best approach and identify the types of information that designers need to successfully respond to a ticket or RFI and target audience the lead time they will be aiming for.

3.4.3 Class III: High group cohesion, moderate participation in integrated practices

With the prior involvement of the constructor, Class III naturally enables the development of an improved group coherence between the construction manager or general contractor and the design team. It has the potential to create a strong team sense and commitment to project success. The two primary drivers for this increase lie in early selection based on the qualifications of the principal contractor. This difference in strategy allows the chief builder to be more fully involved in the design process, reducing adversarial relationships and building trust by accounting by construction costs open books. Extending the scope of qualifications to key specialist professions and taking the opportunity to engage them in advance to obtain design feedback in a more timely manner can provide rich value in the planning and feasibility of the final project. Similar strategies to class I and II suggestions should be considered to increase the involvement of specialist industries, for example involving key designers, transaction selection processes, and confirming and refining project goals or BIM implementation plans as new team members join.

3.4.4. Class IV: Moderate group cohesion, high participation in integrated practices

Grade IV achieves a higher level of participation in integrated exercises by involving not only the lead developer but also key specialization in early goal setting, design and planning activities. The main design teams in class IV have been very successful in achieving complex project goals, types of facilities and projects with intense schedules. Expectations for integrated practices can be stated by requesting quotation documents to encourage the proposition of teams to work towards processes and participation that will support these owner's desires. In addition, the need to focus on team development can be increased throughout the project. This can be achieved by defining boarding procedures for new team members and continual improvement of the Communication team.

3.4.5 Grade V: High group cohesion, high participation in integrated practices

Grade V strategies usually have a solid foundation to align the core project team, both in terms of participation in integrated practices and group cohesion development. A combination of early core project team involvement, an open-minded accounting approach, and a strong involvement in collaborative processes leading to V-class projects having the highest probability of achieving cost, schedule and quality objectives. Despite these strong starting elements, there is always potential for challenging team dynamics. Focus, after selecting project teams, must be involved developing collaborative design and planning processes, sharing information and making decisions in clear, concise documents Development of multidisciplinary teams spanning companies and disciplinary lines can support more integrated practices and improved decision making. In addition, developing proficiency in using collaboration tools and processes can help teams determine the best methods of capturing and sharing key information, as well as effectively sourcing information from a full range of stakeholders. Ultimately, the need to constantly focus and develop team dynamics should be of interest throughout the design and construction process.

3.5 Summary of the project implementation strategy

At the end of the workshop, the project owner and stakeholders should document the design process for selecting a delivery strategy. Found in Appendix A, Character 3d in the Project Summary The Delivery Strategy is designed to be a high-level summary of the most important decisions and issues raised during the workshop. You can create a project delivery selection report by lining up this summary sheet in front of other forms in the order they were filled out. This report will serve as documentation for selecting a project implementation strategy and an outline of the key steps in creating tender documents and project contracts.

This Owner's Guide to Maximizing Success in Integrated Projects provides a structured approach to selecting a project implementation strategy based on empirical evidence from over 200 capital project facilities. The study found that the boundaries between standard delivery methods are becoming blurred. Owners should think about project delivery strategies that carefully consider how the organizational structure, contract payment terms, and team assembly process can work together. There were three themes for customization within the core project team: early involvement, qualification-based selection, and cost transparency in contracts. Owners should include themes in their implementation strategy as much as possible, taking into account their specific goals and organizational constraints. The study also found that during the implementation phases, project teams with higher performance participate in integrated practices and develop into a cohesive group. More integrated practices have resulted in faster delivery speeds and reduced schedule growth. Greater group cohesion led to reduced cost increases and improved turnover. Owners should strive to maximize the possibilities of these practices during the development of the project implementation strategy and during its implementation. The appendices to this guide contain instructions for a structured project implementation workshop. The appendices also include workshop forms that provide step-by-step implementation of the results of these studies. The study found that no project delivery strategy is appropriate for all design. Rather, the project-specific goals and constraints will determine the optimal implementation strategy. The results of these studies show that owners should strive to maximize integrated practices and group cohesion to the greatest extent possible in all project delivery strategies. The authors of the guide would like to confirm that this document was made possible by the contributions of over 300 owners and industry professionals who provided data from them to completed projects. The authors welcome and encourage any comments that will help us improve future versions of the guide. The latest version of the guide and the feedback forum will be hosted at http://bim.psu.edu/delivery

This appendix describes the test methods and the analysis process. Though succinct, the description contains enough detail to develop an understanding of the empirical evidence that drives the results. The description conveys the robustness of the research and highlights both the advantages and limitations of the finding when applying the process in the guide. Full Research Methodology Description The full research report is available for download from the Charles Bank Foundation website, www.pankowfoundation.org/grants.cfm, Grant # 02-12.

Research review

The aim of the study was to determine, analytically and without prejudice, the role of project implementation and to integrate the team in the project success. The study was designed to measure the impact of the owner of the practice success regarding roles, team integration, team behavior, delivery methods, procurement methods, and project execution in the design and construction industries. Although similar contributions from previous studies are often cited in literature and practice, groundbreaking studies began to lose relevance for several reasons. In the last decade, new improvements to the evolutionary process such as Sustainable Design, Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Lean Design have grown in popularity. And while previous empirical studies have considered the relationships between project execution, ordering and payment, no single study has examined the combined effect of these factors on project performance with a large number of projects.

Research steps

The study was conducted in three main steps: (1) Develop and test a data collection instrument (2) Collect data and verify responses (3) Perform data analysis for. Factor analysis and clustering b. Structural equation modeling

Development of a data collection instrument

To develop a data collection instrument, the research team used structured workshops or 'charrette studies' to develop a preliminary list of variables and prioritize it. Charrette research has several advantages over traditional surveys: providing an environment for industry experts to interact in a structured manner; use of multiple data collection strategies in one setting; getting answers at a glance Amount of time; and the formation of a committee using a non-random expert-centered sampling method. A two-day charrette workshop was conducted to develop a preliminary list of performance indicators and influencing variables and to prioritize their relevance and availability. A panel of experts was invited to attend, attended by two CM / GCs, two specialized contractors, three owners (two private and one public), two lawyers and one architect. Panellists were selected to represent the interests of major industry groups (eg, Design-Build Institute of America, Construction Management Association of America, Associated General Contractors of America, American Institute of Architects, among others); all participants had at least 15 years of experience in the construction industry. Several steps were taken to refine and validate the data collection instrument. Structured assessments were performed to assess the relevance and availability of performance indicators and critical success factors. The results of the evaluation were used to refine the scope of the data collection procedure and to select the most important and reliable variables. The results helped the team identify comprehensive variables and narrow the list down to a manageable number for data collection questions. The questionnaire was tested using both internal (four projects) and external (ten projects) pilots. The tests were used to verify the availability of the requested information and to identify potential misunderstandings in a given case by formulating questions. Data collection and response verification In order to collect a wide range of industry projects, the developed questionnaire was submitted to professional organizations from the architecture, engineering and construction industries. Mailing lists and e-mail listser distribution was used to disseminate participants. Response rates by mailing list and electronic distribution ranged from 1.6% to 4.8%. As one of the respondents may not have full knowledge of the project, a verification process was performed to confirm the survey data responses. To ensure the quality of the responses, each completed questionnaire was first checked for missing or inconsistent data. The questionnaires were supplemented with annotations explaining the verification connections, with an emphasis on contract values ​​and schedule deadlines. For each response, a follow-up request has been agreed with the respondent to confirm the understanding of the submitted questionnaire and make any modifications needed to adapt the survey data to the database requirements. There were additional connections made to gather information from other parties about each project, eg quality assessments were specifically requested by the owner. A total of 331 questionnaires were received. Created a Microsoft Access® database for interception and store your questionnaire responses. After data verification with respondents, the aggregated data was examined prior to analysis. The missing data has been coded into the alert analysis programs to exclude values. Projects with more than 30% of missing data were removed. In addition, projects outside the scope of the study, such as refurbishment projects, international projects, works and road works, projects that have not yet been substantially completed, and projects less than 5000 square feet gross have also been removed. All designs that cannot be verified with the owner have also been deleted. Finally, a descriptive study examined the statistics for each variable to identify values ​​out of range for means, medians, minima, and maxima. A total of 204 questionnaires were qualified for the analysis.

Data analysis

The research used a combination of multivariate modeling techniques to analyze the data. First, class analysis was performed implicitly to identify the underlying categorical categories that correspond to the patterns in the procurement and contracting variables, resulting in project execution strategy classes. The models for measuring team integration and group cohesion were validated using confirmatory method and exploratory factor analysis. Finally, the structural equation models were computed and compared on the basis of the model fit and the explained variance. All statistical analyzes were performed with MPlus version 7.2 and pairwise removal of missing data. Multivariate Factor Analysis. The latent class analysis uses a clustering algorithm to identify underlying, categorical subgroups, or "classes" in a sample. Classes are defined by the presence or absence of indices, expressed as the probability that they will distinguish one class from another. The purpose of this analysis was to better represent the structure. Project execution as a strategy using variables known to influence the structure of the project team. These variables were reduced to a set of binary pointers and exploratory analysis of the latent class was run remove the weak discriminants of the class. Models of many classes were created. Based on the fit and selection pointers, an appropriate number of classes were selected to represent the data. Finally, each project was assigned to the class with the highest likelihood of belonging. Measurement models representing team integration and group cohesion as latent factors tested using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The goal of factor analysis is to: group highly interrelated or correlated variables into fewer unobserved factors. During exploratory factor analysis, several measures found that the variables were not representative of latent team integration and group cohesion factors and were therefore removed from further analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was tested using two matching indices - mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and comparative fit index (CFI). The final model shown in Figure A-1 confirmed the relationships of the other variables and a positive correlation was identified between team integration and group cohesion. A similar approach was used to generate factors representing quality scores. Structural Equation Modeling In order to take into account all the possible dependencies of the variables, a series of structural equation models were performed and compared based on the model fit and variance explanation. Weighted least squares with mean and variance-adjusted estimator (WLSMV) were used to calculate the path coefficients. The WLSMV estimator is more robust when modeling combinations of qualitative and continuous data. The final structural equation model shown in Figure A -2 includes three focal blocks: (1) project strategy classes; (2) team integration and group cohesion factors; and (3) the results of the project. In addition, the model was checked for differences in the size of the facility and the type of project owner. An array of models was tested using a combination of the three blocks and excluding or including checking the variables. The best-fit model included all focal blocks and control variables, and not only had an Acceptable Fit (SPI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.03), but also had a high percentage of variance explained (R2) for each Outcome variable.

Tiller: Owner type Object size - see original document.

There were several significant avenues in this model that suggest how project delivery strategies directly and indirectly affect project success. First, group cohesion was the only significant predictor of project cost increase (p = 0.00), with controlling project delivery strategy, team integration, owner type and facility size. Improving group cohesion by one unit reduced the average cost increase by 2.3%; Although the overall change explained was low (R2 = 0.11). Second, group consistency was also an important predictor of turnover experience and overall facility system quality. To increase group consistency by one unit, the trading experience was improved by 0.58 units (p = 0.00) and the overall quality of the facility system was improved by 0.55 units (p = 0.00). Finally, team integration was the only significant predictor of schedule growth (p = 0.01) when controlling project delivery strategy, group consistency, owner type and facility size. A one unit increase in Team Integration reduced the average schedule growth by 4.4%; Although the overall change explained was low (R2 = 0.13). Within the Guide Owner Corps, these findings have been interpreted by the research team and language possible to undertake steps to maximize the probability of project success.

Restrictions

There are some significant limitations readers should understand when using this guide. First, the structural equation model explains about 40% of the team integration variability. The remaining variance can be attributed to various sources, such as the owner-manager's project capabilities or rules in the owner's organization that are independent of the project delivery strategy. Likewise, unexplained variance in group cohesion may be due to differences in personality, corporate culture, or previous experience. Undoubtedly, there is a lot of further research into the effectiveness of teams in construction, but this research is a necessary first step in demonstrating that relationships with project outcomes exist and can be measured. Second, comparisons between object types were not made. Due to sample size limitations, sufficient site-specific comparative samples were not large enough to account for a potential explanatory value. The pathways identified by the structural equation have been models for all industry sectors, but may be stronger or weaker for certain types of facilities.

The importance of analytical methods

It is important for the reader to bear a few points in mind after reading this chapter. Understanding the key elements of the methodology is important to understanding the research findings. Several steps have been taken throughout the methodology to minimize bias, including capturing evaluation responses directly from project owners in order to obtain meaningful comparisons. The latent class analysis allowed us to understand not only how a single variable such as a delivery method influenced design outcomes - it allowed us to understand how several variables worked together to form typical project profiles that led to stronger relationships with execution project.

Overview: This document contains forms to support the process of a project strategy selection workshop. According to the guidelines contained in this document, the workshops should last from 2 to 4 hours. The main purpose of this process is to: • Provide a structured approach to assist owners in selecting an appropriate project delivery strategy; • Increasing the use of integrated practices and team coherence in all project implementation strategies; and • Provide documentation for the selection decision.

background: The project delivery strategy workshop process is based on the performance of more than 200 buildings in the US projects completed in 2008–2013. The study was conducted by the University of Colorado and Pennsylvania State University with the funds of the Pankow and the Construction Institute of Industry Foundation. For a complete guide and research details, please visit http://bim.psu.edu/delivery.

Workshop and facilitation: The choice of the project implementation strategy is best made in a workshop with the owner and key stakeholders of the project. This process will improve the owner's understanding of the necessary decisions to build an effective project team and build alignment with the project goals from the outset. Facilitating the workshop will make the process more efficient. In addition to a solid understanding of decisions within the delivery strategy (ie organizational structure, contract payment terms and assembly process team), the facilitator only needs to know to maximize success in integrating Projects: User Guide and Forms included in this package. Facilitation helps answer questions, makes sure the process goes as planned, and guides workshop participants towards a formal selection.

Time and participation: The selection of a project delivery strategy should be made as early as possible, preferably during the programming and / or conceptual design phase. Key actors may include, but are not limited to, the owner, facility manager, user representative, owner construction representative and / or other key project, and construction professionals depending on the owner structure. Minimum Participation 3-5 people are recommended and 12-15 maximums maximum, but this number will vary depending on the project size / complexity and owner profile.

Potential bias: It is best for workshop participants to have an open mind about the delivery strategy. Preconceived ideas can introduce bias in discussions. If participants are focused on potential, the method is best discussed with the entire selection team at the beginning of the workshop. Putting ideas on the table help others understand the potential benefits of the various strategic approaches available.

Preparation for the workshop: Planning ahead of the workshop will result in a more concise and informative session. This is helpful for the owner and facilitator who will complete all known project information, goals and constraints before the workshop. The best solution is to complete the Project Attributes and Project Specific Objectives and provide them to workshop participants prior to the workshop. However, these sheets can be finished in a workshop if needed.

Workshop process and worksheets

For each step in the project implementation strategy selection process described in the User Guide, participants are provided with a form or worksheet. A brief description of these forms is provided on the next page.

Process step Name of the form

Step 1: Define the project needs: a. Document project summary information Form 1a) Project description b. Define project specific objectives Form 1b) Project specific objectives

Step 2: Learn about delivery strategy options. Discuss the organizational structure: a. Responsibility for the project Form 2a) Project Responsibility Opportunities / Obstacles b. Deadline for commitment Form 2b) Deadline for opportunities / obstacles related to commitment Discuss the terms of payment for the contract: c. Cost Transparency Form 2c) Cost Transparency Opportunities / Obstacles Discuss Team Assembly: re. Selection process Form 2d) Opportunities / obstacles in the selection process mi. Selection criteria Form 2e) Selection criteria Opportunities / Obstacles fa. Previous experience with owner Form 2f) more recent experiences / obstacles sol. Interview process Form 2g) Opportunities / obstacles related to the interview

Step 3: Choose your project's implementation strategy. Identify legal and political constraints. Form 3a) Design constraints b. Compare delivery decisions with known strategies. Form 3b) Compare Delivery To Strategy Reflect on the consistency of the strategy. Form 3c) Comments for reflection re. Summarize decisions regarding the project implementation strategy Form 3d) Summary of the project implementation strategy Supplements a) -h) Supplements a) -g) Opportunity / obstacle checklists Supplements h) Integrated practices and consistency improvements

NOTE: Usually the entire selection process can be completed by the project team in 2-4 hours workshop session, as long as each team member has individually read the project description and take into account the objectives before the workshop.

Participation in workshops

Document the date, location, organizer and attendees. This form is for administration purposes only.

Step 1: Define the project needs: 1a) Project description Provide information about the project. This includes attributes such as size, type, financing, risk, complexity, etc. All known information should be listed for a specific project, but the information should be concise. 1b) Project-specific objectives The precise definition of project objectives is the instrumental first step of this process to guide the selection of an appropriate project implementation strategy.

Step 2: Explore your delivery strategy options

2a) -g) Opportunities / Obstacles These eight forms are used to summarize the assessments made by the workshop team specific opportunities and obstacles related to the organizational structure, payment for the contract, term factors and the team assembly process. At the end of each form, the workshop team documents the preferred option for each factor. The scores are then carried over to the initial value. Delivery strategy preferences are at the end of this chapter. After filling in the initial, the Delivery Strategy Preference Form should contain a summary of the necessary decisions and compare the project implementation strategies.

Supplemented by a) -g) Opportunity / Obstacle Checklists These eight checklists provide the workshop team with additional guidance on general opportunities and obstacles related to organizational structure, contract maturity, factors, and the team assembly process. The list of opportunities and obstacles should only be mentioned after the workshop team has exhausted ideas for a specific project online. Opportunity / Obstacle Sheets in step 2a-g.

Step 3: Choose a project implementation strategy:

3a) Design Restrictions Review any organizational or legal restrictions on the delivery process. These limitations can limit or even eliminate the consideration of certain project delivery strategies. The workshop team should identify the constraints using a form to narrow down potential choices, often to less than three viable strategies. The viable strategies are then transferred to the Delivery Strategy Comparison Sheet where they are compared to the workshop team's preferred options from the Initial Delivery Strategy Preferences form in step 2.

3b) Compare Delivery Strategy This sheet allows you to compare the real project delivery strategies (defined in step 3a) against the workshop team's preferred delivery options (Initial Delivery Strategy Preferences) summarized in step 2). After completing the comparison, the workshop team will have to define the decisions needed for the desired project implementation strategy.

3c) Check the consistency of the delivery strategy The workshop team should discuss the consistency of the desired strategy implementation. This discussion is an opportunity to examine the shop-to-shop compatibility of team-preferred delivery options, familiar project execution strategy classes, and critical success factors for a project team. The workshop team identifies any non-conformities with your preferred delivery options and documents how the desired strategy will best support your project objectives. Finally, the workshop team lists concrete examples of integrated practices and group cohesion opportunities that will be used to strengthen the project team. Supplement h) Checklist for Integration and Consistency Improvement These two checklists provide the workshop team with additional guidance on strengthening integrated practices and group cohesion. The list of improvements concerns the strategies for implementing class IV projects discovered during the research. The checklists are designed to help owners achieve optimal use of integrated practices and group consistency across all project strategies.

3d) Project implementation strategy summary This form summarizes all steps and documents the final project implementation strategy. This form acts as a summary for the project strategy report. It should be attached as the first page of the report, followed by other forms in the order in which they were completed.

Participation in workshops

Workshop summary: Project name: Workshop date: Workshop location: Moderator: Workshop participants Name E-mai

Step 1: Define the project needs

Form 1a) Describe the project When describing a specific project, the following attributes should be considered. Relevant documents can be added as attachments to the final summary report. Project Description Project Name:

Form 1b) Establish project objectives Understanding the project objectives is essential to selecting an appropriate project implementation strategy and ultimately to defining the project's success. Therefore, project goals should be the first step in the project's process of selecting a delivery strategy. Typically, project goals can be defined in three to five elements that deal with project management and project success. Remember that these goals should remain a coherent project life. Project-specific goals.

Step 2: Explore your delivery strategy options

Form 2a) Project Responsibility - Opportunities / Obstacles When considering how to structure design and construction services, owners have two main options. They may choose to hire a designer and lead builder separately (ie Multiple Contracts) using Design-Risk Arrangements for Bidding or Construction, or they may choose a combined solution (ie single contract) with Design-Build or IPD. Multiple Agreements: Responsibility for design and construction can be broken down into separate agreements. Project-building rates contract forms are clearly separated from the builder contract starting after the end of the project. The construction manager at risk of contract forms has separate pre-construction and construction contracts for the builder. - See original document

Form 2b) Engagement deadlines - opportunities / obstacles: Organizationally, the engagement timing refers to when the lead engineer and other key specialty contractors are hired. The study found three main timeframes for involvement: (1) pre-schematic project; (2) between the diagram and the construction documentation; and (3) the following completion of construction documents.

Form 2c) Cost transparency - opportunities / barriers: Cost transparency refers to the application of closed or open book payment terms between the main developer and owner. It can also refer to the terms of payment between the main builder and the key specialist professions. - See original document

Form 2d) Selection process - Opportunities / Obstacles Owners have the option to apply for bids or proposals for "any" builders interested in the project or pre-qualified builders who are the only organizations that can bid / bid on the project. - See original document

Form 2e) Selection criteria - Opportunities / Obstacles: After deciding to start the purchase phase, the owner must develop the basis (or criteria) for selecting a constructor and potentially specialist transactions for the project. The owner has a choice to choose based on price only, based on qualifications only, or use Best Value to combine price and non-price factors. - See original document

Form 2f) Previous experience with the owner - Opportunities / Obstacles: When constructing the project, the owner orders a builder based on criteria important to the project. The construction company you choose may be a company that the owner has never worked with, or a construction company that the owner has experience working with on previous projects. - See original document

Form 2g) Interview process - opportunities / obstacles: The use of the interview process when selecting a constructor means that the owner uses a price other than price factors in the procurement process. Interviews can range in intensity from simple explanations to proposing specific questions about scenarios that may arise during design and construction from a project. Owners must choose whether or not to be interviewed before they are invited to submit tenders or tenders - See original document

Summarize your initial delivery strategy preferences: Move your preferred shipping preferences (fields 2a-g) into the table below. This table provides a summary of the initial decisions covering a potential project implementation strategy. In step 3, this form will assist you in selecting the optimal strategy for your project that is consistent with your existing organization's delivery policies and constraints.

Step 3: Choose a project delivery strategy

Form 3a) Identify delivery constraints: Identify the most appropriate project delivery strategies that can be tailored to your organization's organizational structure, contract payment terms and team assembly processes. The terms "Required" and "Prohibited" are limitations by law or company policy. Please review the list of restrictions below and check for each restriction that applies to your organization or project. For everyone, due to the assessment of the adequacy of each project implementation strategy. If there is an "X" under any project delivery strategy, discontinue the assessment of that strategy as it does not comply with the project constraints. If several constraints are checked, then only look for strategies that are appropriate for all constraints in force (checked). For example, if "the owner is prohibited from using one contract" (I, II, III are appropriate, IV has a fatal flaw, and V is difficult if selected) and "Early GC, CM or DB Participation is prohibited" (I , II are appropriate, III is a challenge if selected, and IV, V have fatal results. Defect), then the most appropriate implementation strategies for your project are I and II - See original document

Form 3b) Select the optimal project implementation strategy: In the form below, outline or cover the columns with project implementation strategies that were not feasible taking into account the constraints analysis in step 3a. Compare the project delivery preferences of the workshop team, from that the initial Strategic Delivery Preferences create, to the remaining columns. Identify a single project delivery strategy or two strategies that best suit your preferences - See original document

Form 3c) Check Delivery Strategy Consistency: To finalize your project delivery strategy decisions, use the following form to store a discussion that examines the consistency of the workshop team's delivery preferences. When comparing the workshop team's preferences to known project delivery strategies, the team's preferences may not match exactly with one strategy. The goal of this step is to identify them with preferences that may not be consistent with a consistent strategy, and to ensure that the desired delivery strategy supports the project-specific goals. When attempting to finalize a delivery strategy, the owner and their stakeholders should lean towards decisions that support the three themes included in the most effective delivery strategies - early involvement of team members, transparent cost accounting, and selection based on qualifications. Finally, the workshop team should document specific examples of integrated practice and group cohesion building opportunities that will be used to improve the team design. Supplement h) provides a checklist of specific examples of integrated practices and the consistency of consideration for initiating discussions. However, the workshop team is encouraged to find other ways to support these key success factors. - See original document

Form 3d) Summarize the project implementation strategy: In the form below, summarize all steps and document the final project implementation strategy. This form will act as a summary of the report. Please attach as the first page of the report with the other forms attached after it in the order in which they were completed - See original document

Complete a) -h) Opportunity / Obstacle Checklists - See original document

a) Checklist of design opportunities and obstacles

b) A checklist of opportunities and obstacles to engagement

c) A checklist of opportunities and obstacles for cost transparency

d) See original document

e) Checklist of choices and obstacles

f) Previous experience with the owner's checklist of opportunities and obstacles

g) A checklist of opportunities and obstacles during an interview

h) Checklist for integration and improvement of consistency