• Home
• Conference Photo's
• Conference Final Papers
• Preliminary Program
• Progam at Glance
• Speaker Information
• Organization Committees
• Conference Topics
• Industry Day
• PhD Research Training
• Conference Venue
• Hotels in Noordwijk aan Zee
• Registration Information
• Call for Abstracts
• Authors Instructions
• Important Dates
• Conference Excursions
• Useful to Know
• Contact

09:00   Integration and Collaboration I Chair: Peter Barendse 09:00 20 mins DEVELOPMENTS IN PARTNERING: MODELS, RELATIONSHIP DURATION AND KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION Anna Kadefors, Pernilla Gluch Abstract: Over time, partnering initiatives have been characterized by increasing formalization and involvement of a wider range of actors, but there does not seem to be a clear trend that project partnering is replaced by long term relations. In this paper, we discuss which factors influence the development of strategic and project partnering respectively, as well as trends in managing integrated teamwork. The empirical basis is three case studies: two of project partnering relationships and one of a long term long term partnership involving a network of suppliers. We find that partnering models and performance are shaped both by project management and by factors in the project environment. Long term relations supplier have to be skilfully managed to be an attractive alternative to project partnering in a market where general partnering competence is high. Also, in the management of complex collaborative relationships, a key challenge is to balance the benefits of including as much competence as possible with the restrictions of creating meeting places for meaningful knowledge exchange. Further, with increasing maturity partnering may more often be used to change power relations and bring in critical perspectives, thereby calling for other types of conflict management than those relating to contractual disagreements. 09:20 20 mins RE-NEGOTIATING ARCHITECTS’ RELEVANCY – A U.S. PERSPECTIVE ON IPD AND BIM Erik Churchill, Roxi Thoren Abstract: Key Words- Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Building Information Modeling (BIM), Project Delivery, Architect’s Role, Negotiation Summary- “A US Bureau of Labor Statistics study shows construction alone, out of all non-farm industries, as decreasing in productivity since 1964, while all other non-farm industries have increased productivity by over 200% during the same period.” (AIA,1:3) This surprising statistic demands a re-examination of professional roles in the building industry and requires asking if and how architects are relevant as their roles have changed the most since 1964. The building industry is currently exploring two primary strategies to combat this inefficiency: Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Building Information Modeling (BIM). Both strategies attempt to create a communication network that overcomes the inefficiencies of the fragmented design and construction process. The architect’s role in both strategies remains largely undefined. Future negotiations will define who will lead these networks and subsequently the building industry. Context- The inefficiency of the building industry is a result of structured adversarial relationships between the multiple parties: owners, architects, engineers, construction managers, contractors, sub contractors and fabricators. In response to antitrust legislation and lawsuits, the American Institute of Architects in 1977 revised the Professional Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct making the profession much more risk adverse. Prior to that, in the “guilded age” of U.S. architecture, architects were the natural leaders of the industry. Since 1977 architects have sought to maintain a similar level of control but from a position of less legal vulnerability. They sell advice, while other parties prescribe “means and methods”. As a result, architects no longer develop expertise in and therefore do not control the budget and schedule. This has marginalized their relevance to the owner. In order to regain relevancy, architects must re-negotiate their legal position. However, the AIA continues to issue contract documents that perpetuate role-based, distributive negotiations rather than support integrative legal agreements, much less support education to develop leadership skills for architects. Method of Inquiry- Through analysis of contractual roles in “guilded-age” (pre-1977), contemporary (1977-2009, design-bid-build), and progressive (BIM, IPD, design-build, Single Project Entities) project delivery models, the architect’s role and relevancy is explored and defined. Business negotiation constructs and tools are used to analyze contract and literature reviews and primary interviews representing the full building industry. The method highlights ways in which the architecture profession has become marginalized based on its own contractual, legal, and economic motives as well as those of the other parties. It clearly demonstrates why continuing the same business strategies will only perpetuate and reinforce the current marginal role of the U.S. architect. Findings- IPD and BIM can be viewed by architects as opportunities to redefine their entire business model into a structured network of specialized professionals. To do so, architects must develop new contractual agreements that reflect IPD and BIM as business strategies rather than using them as mere tools to execute the same contractual relationships. IPD and BIM present architects with an opportunity to use new technology to redefine their value and relevance to the industry. Using IPD and BIM as tools to increase efficiency in the current contractual agreements will not achieve the desired effect of architects as leaders of the industry because contractors are better positioned to realize the main efficiencies of these strategies in the current contracts. Therefore, architects must use them as business strategies to reposition themselves as orchestrators of a technologically advanced and resource efficient network. Architects must therefore educate themselves to be leaders, add new skills and knowledge of budget and schedule management, and re-address their risk-management policies in order to take a pro-active role in a highly competitive and litigious industry. Key Citations- AIA, Project Delivery: A Guide, 2007. pdf “Building Information Modeling Contract Documents Arrive.” ENR. 2008 vol:261 iss:13 pg:16 -16 Knight. “Teams, Contracts & BIM.” ASHRAE Journal. 2008 vol:50 iss:9 pg:72 -80 Thomson. “BIM: Contractual Risks are Changing with Technology.” Consulting-specifying engineer. 2006 vol:40 iss:2 pg:54 -66 Nobel. “Can project alliancing agreements change the way we build?” Architectural Record. 2007.iss:7,pg:65-66 09:40 20 mins DESIGNING CONSTRUCTIONS: WAYS TO INVOLVE THE CONTRACTOR Monika Chao-Duivis Abstract: The contract models ‘design and build’ and ‘turnkey imply’ that the one party (usually, but necessiraly the contractor) takes care of design and build. There are more contractmodels known to involve the contractor in design activities: the Dutch model of the ‘building team’ and the internationally known and used model ‘alliances’. In the Dutch construction world all these models are being used. The motivation being the whish to build more efficiently, cheaper and with less legal problems. 1.The Dutch building team gives the contractor influence during design. After completing the design work the contractor is the first one to be invited to make an offer on the construction of the design. There is therefore a break between the design and the construction phase and in this way this model could be called traditional. Nevertheless the use of construction expertise during the design phase makes this model attractive, and being used in the both the utilities field and infrastructure. In this paper it will be argued that the way alliances are legally shaped they show remarkable resemblance to the building team model. Obviously parties are not alway in need to go all the way with alliances. Is the building team a real alternative?