Project
Zeinab Bachir
Outline
• Phase 1: Introduction to IPD:
• What Is Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)?
• Core Principles of IPD
• Key Stakeholders and Roles
• Goals and Advantages of IPD
• IPD vs. Traditional Delivery (Brief Overview)
• Phase 2: Comparative Analysis of IPD vs. Traditional Methods
• Phase 3: Real-World IPD Case Studies
• Phase 4: Analysis and Recommendations
What Is Integrated Project
Delivery (IPD)?
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): A Modern Approach to Collaboration
• Definition: IPD = a collaborative project delivery method
that integrates the owner, designer, contractor, and key Owner
stakeholders under one multi-party agreement.
• Goal: Align all participants’ objectives to optimize cost,
schedule, and quality.
• Key Idea: “All win or all lose together.” IPD –
Shared
Contract
Contractor Designer/
Architect
Core Principles of IPD
Principles That Define IPD Early
Involvement
• Early Involvement: all major participants engaged from
the concept stage.
• Shared Risk and Reward: profits and losses tied to BIM
Integration
Shared
Risk/Reward
overall project success.
• Joint Decision-Making: governance by consensus, not
hierarchy. Core of
• Transparency and Open Books: everyone sees cost IPD
data and performance metrics.
• Collaboration over Competition: focus on collective Collaboration
Joint
Decisions
problem solving.
• Technology Integration (BIM): digital coordination and
data sharing tools. Transparency
Key Stakeholders and Their
Roles
Who Is Involved in IPD?
Stakeholder Main Role Collaboration Focus
Owner Defines vision and funding Engages in decisions throughout
Coordinates with builder from day
Architect/Engineer Leads design and innovation
one
Oversees construction and cost Provides constructability input
Contractor/CM
control during design
Work with core team under shared
Consultants/Suppliers Offer specialized expertise
contract
Table 1. The table shows the main IPD stakeholders, their primary responsibilities, and how each contributes to
project collaboration.
Goals and Advantages of IPD
Why Adopt IPD?
• Faster Delivery: Overlapping design & construction reduces time.
• Better Quality: Continuous feedback minimizes errors and rework.
• Cost Certainty: Shared data and early budget alignment reduce surprises.
• Innovation: Cross-disciplinary input drives creative solutions.
• Fewer Disputes: Shared goals replace claims and conflict culture.
Faster Better Cost Fewer
Innovation
Delivery Quality Certainty Disputes
IPD vs Traditional Delivery
Methods
A New Paradigm in Project Delivery
Aspect Traditional (DBB/CMAR) IPD
Contracts Separate agreements One multi-party contract
Risk Allocation Owner or contractor bears risk Shared risk and reward
Workflow Sequential phases Overlapping and collaborative
Communication Linear reporting Integrated team platforms
Culture Adversarial Cooperative and trust-based
Outcome Focus Individual profit Collective project success
Table 2. The table shows the main differences between traditional delivery methods (e.g., DBB, CMAR) and the
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) approach in terms of contracts, risk, workflow, communication, and culture.
Outline
• Phase 1: Introduction to IPD:
• Phase 2: Comparative Analysis of IPD vs. Traditional Methods
• Phase 3: Real-World IPD Case Studies
• Phase 4: Analysis and Recommendations
Outline
• Phase 1: Introduction to IPD:
• Phase 2: Comparative Analysis of IPD vs. Traditional Methods
• Phase 3: Real-World IPD Case Studies
• Identify and present two real-world construction projects that used IPD,
discussing the successes and challenges encountered.
• Highlight key takeaways from these projects that demonstrate IPD’s value or
potential limitations.
• Phase 4: Analysis and Recommendations
The Mosaic Centre
for Conscious Community and Commerce
Project General Overview
• The Mosaic Centre is a 30,000-square-foot net-zero energy and LEED Platinum
commercial building in Summerside, Edmonton, Canada, designed to be a
collaborative space.
• It was developed by Cuku’s Nest Enterprises and designed by Manasc Isaac, with
Chandos Construction as the general contractor.
• It was created with an Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) approach, emphasizing
sustainability, health, and community.
• The project includes offices, a restaurant, a childcare center, a wellness center,
and co-working spaces, all connected by a central atrium, and uses sustainable
features like mass timber construction and solar panels.
The Mosaic Centre
for Conscious Community and Commerce
Successes
The successes to the project are quite so many. Here are a few of them:
• Cost Savings and Schedule Efficiency: The building was delivered 12% below
market cost and 29% ahead of schedule relative to a comparable project. Its
completion was earlier than planned and under budget.
• Strong Collaboration and Shared Risk/Reward: The IPD contract was an open-
book, with multiple parties (owner, consultants, contractors, etc.) sharing risk and
reward. In addition, the owner was very involved from early stages.
• Waste Reduction & Materials Management: In which, high rates of construction
waste diversion were reported since the project used local materials, upcycling
scraps,…
The Mosaic Centre
for Conscious Community and Commerce
Challenges
• Coordination Complexity: Because IPD involves many stakeholders very early,
coordination required more time during the design phase. Also, maintaining
alignment through design, costing, value engineering, construction,… especially
since sustainability goals were ambitious, can lead to challenging decision-
making.
• Risk Management and Shared Responsibility: This means that transparency is
essential, which can be challenging. Also, there is risk around performance
meeting the design goals which requires thorough research.
• Ambitious Performance Goals vs Harsh Climate: Edmonton’s cold, northern
climate makes net-zero commercial buildings much more challenging. Designing
systems that can handle winter without huge energy loss was insignificant.
The Mosaic Centre
for Conscious Community and Commerce
Key Takeaways and Potential Limitations
From this project, a lot of lessons can be learned form, some of which are:
• Front-load design & decision-making: the more time and effort spent during the design
phase when gathering information, modelling, prototyping, designing…, the fewer
surprises and changes later.
• Strong owner involvement & clear vision: Having owners committed and involved at early
stages and consistently, helps align all participants as well as the project as a whole.
• Use of lean / IPD tools: Open-book contracts, shared risk/reward, regular collaboration
meetings, continuous value engineering, waste diversion etc., are tools that helped put
the project all together.
• Balance ambition and realism: This was applied specifically with wanting the building to
follow net-zero, Living Building standards etc., in which the team made trade-offs where
necessary, always testing performance.
Outline
• Phase 1: Introduction to IPD:
• Phase 2: Comparative Analysis of IPD vs. Traditional Methods
• Phase 3: Real-World IPD Case Studies
• Phase 4: Analysis and Recommendations
