Integrated Project Delivery Application: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Adoption in Canada

Integrated project delivery is an innovation that is being adopted in construction. Different developers are embracing this process because it has proven to be productive concerning achieving the projected results. The change majorly aims at reducing the cost of the project; this can be done by choosing the right procurement option. Furthermore, the plan identifies and aims and reducing the time sued to complete a given project. Project delivery. It also ensures a collaborative team so formed under one contract.

Running head: INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 1
Integrated Project Delivery Application
Name
Institution Affiliation

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 2
Executive summary
Integrated project delivery is an innovation that is being adopted in construction. Different
developers are embracing this process because it has proven to be productive concerning
achieving the projected results. The change majorly aims at reducing the cost of the project; this
can be done by choosing the right procurement option. Furthermore, the plan identifies and
aims and reducing the time sued to complete a given project. Project delivery. It also ensures a
collaborative team so formed under one contract. The method is exposed to various risks and at
the same time rewards can be identified. Besides, IDP integrates a variety of practices,
systems, and business plus financial structures. To have a viable IDP, different approaches are
used for example public-private partnerships, design-build, and design assist. The process also
ensures that a project is highly feasible and viable. This enhances the project performance. The
integrated project delivery allows all the stakeholders to work together (Kent, and Becerik-
Gerber, 2010). This further means that all the stakeholders are working together. Through this,
the process makes use of all the input, talent an experience of the stakeholders. The working
together establishes an apparent connection between the team members.
“Integrated project delivery” and “Integrated practice."
Integrated project delivery is a collaborative method used in the building. The basic role of this
method is to fast enough to develop a cost-effective and high-quality project. The process takes
into account the various stakeholders in the business that is, government agencies, contractors,
construction companies, architects, engineers, and even the owners. It also ensures a
collaborative team so formed under one contract. The method is exposed to various risks and at
the same time rewards can be identified. Also, IDP integrates a variety of practices, systems,
and business plus financial structures (Forbes, and Ahmed, 2010). To have a viable IDP,
different approaches are used for example public-private partnerships, design-build, and design

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 3
assist. On the other hand, an integrated practice involves a single firm single-handedly offering
to do the architecture and engineering works in a given construction. A mixed method ensures
there is reduced fragmentation in the building (Forbes, and Ahmed, 2010).
Strengths and weakness of integrated project delivery for AEC participants
Strengths
A strength of using the process is that the information is widely shared between the
stakeholders. This facilitates faster decision making when it comes to scheduling, making the
budgets and sourcing the materials. When there is a good information technology infrastructure,
integrated project delivery will help in the management of costs, safety measures and solving
any field conflicts. The result will be reduced waste and hence increased productivity in the
given project.
To the owner of the IPD, the process produces a high-quality design since the architect
assigned to do the work plays a significant role. The architect also answers directly to the
owner; this ensures that the progress updates are according to what the owner wants. The
direct communication facilitates the achievement of quality work. Also, there is complete
continuity regarding the preferences and goals throughout the project as well as the
construction process.
The owner also gets a manageable budget. This is because the owner gets to determine the
costs of the whole project early enough in the development stage. The design is also cost
effective since the architect has full access to the construction and pricing of all the processes,
goods information used for the project. The architect also determines the total amount used in
the project; therefore, their project is delivered within the estimated budget reducing the
chances of having budgets overruns or increases.

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 4
The owner also gets to enjoy flexibility in the procurement of all the construction materials that
need to be used in the project. This is because the owner can begin the project just traditionally
and then incorporate the integrated delivery later. There is also no need of maintaining
cumbersome bidding or the RFP process. The owner can adopt the open books used for trades.
Also, the project delivery is faster since it is fast-tracking without the possibility of having loss of
cost control.
To the architect, there are additional profits realized. This is because there is the possibility of
sharing in the project savings. There is also increased efficiency in the design since there is less
labor cost incurred during the construction documents phase. The architect also gets a share in
the construction revenue.
The architect also gets the marketing advantages. This includes the ability to guarantee the
schedule and price of construction. He also offers the option to delay the project structuring
design. The architect can also be able to cultivate the contractors as a source of work.
Furthermore, the architect can promise the maximum owner efficiency and deliver since he is
directly involved in the project.
Another strength of using IPD at AEC for the architect is that they have control over the
construction process. This way, they can be able to avoid unwise decisions during the
construction work. The architect can also be able to minimize lousy publicity after experiencing
design problems. The architect also accepts the entire responsibility of the project; therefore,
there is increased satisfaction for all the participants.
The architect also gets reduced liability. Since the architect is fully involved in the design of the
project, the claims for obvious design omissions are reduced. Complaints can also be reduced
due to the collaborations and cooperatives used rather than having administration adversarial.

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 5
To add on this, the accidents because the contractor insures them (De Marco, and Karzouna,
2018).
The process also has some strengths to the contractors in that the contractor gets the full
project design from the architect. The whole process is single-handedly done by the architect
and presented to the contractor. Moreover, the price of the project is negotiated and not
competitive bidding (Arroyo, Tommelein, and Ballard, 2012). Therefore it is more profitable for
the contractor. The contractor also has enhanced relationships with other people in the projects,
for example, the suppliers and the subcontractors. Since every step is documented and the
information is widely shared, there is reduced the chance to have litigations and claims.
The contractor also gets increased profits. This is because there is no overhead cost of
marketing for the project. There is also a reduced contingency for bidding errors. Moreover,
there is no contingency for adversarial administration.
Weakness
Even though the IDP innovation has various strengths to the different participants at AEC, it also
has some defects. The contractors and the designers might not be familiar with the IDP. This
would reduce the chances of increased efficiency in the project, and the contractors and
designers might opt to step down from the project. It could lead to delays in delivery of the
project.
The project also involves the participation of the whole team in decision making. The owner
might have a hard time to get all the team members to agree on one thing since everyone might
have different opinions and relevant reasons to support their views.
The owner might also have difficulties in getting finances because some financiers may not
know what IDP involves and they might not even support the idea. Some of the reasons that

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 6
may make lenders disinterested with the innovation are that there are limitations on liability and
there is potential for the bonus paid (Ebrahimi, and Dowlatabadi, 2018).
Since the liability is limited, there is someone who suffered the losses when economic damages
are experienced. Currently, the insurance industry is looking into the possibilities of having
products to ensure projects against construction risks when IPD is used.
For there to be strong teams, there need to be influential leaders too. The process requires the
leaders and managers to have strong ambitions for the project and to apply their leadership
skills otherwise the project entirely may not be successful. Furthermore, managers and leaders
should be positive, earnest and very active and avoid lax participation.
IPD adoptions in Canada and those projects completed using IPD frameworks in Canada
AEC in Canada plays a significant role in the economy. It further has a substantial impact on
society and the global environment generally. Different government bodies are praising the
adoption of IDP innovations in the construction industry. The basic idea behind such
developments is that the changes are generating increasing value in the construction industry.
The Canadian government has not been left behind. It is currently advocating for the adoption of
the IDP innovation in the construction industry. The Canadian architecture body that is AECO
represented about $300 G in the total capital expenditure for the year 2013 which approximates
to about 20% of the Canadian gross domestic product. Also, the construction industry employed
approximately 1.3 million people which is about 7.5% of the total workforce in Canada (Tahrani,,
Poirier, Aksenova, and Forgues, 2015). This shows that the AECO industry plays a vital role in
improving the economy of the country.
All the users of IDP are much impressed with the performance, and they all say they would not
want to go back to the traditional ways of construction. In North America, about 12o projects
have used IDP innovation in construction. 12 of the projects are based in Canada. An excellent

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 7
example of a project delivered using the IDP innovation is the mosaic center. It is a structure
occupying 30,000 square foot and was built with approximately 12 % of the cost estimated if it
used the traditional process. It also took much less time to be completed since it took four
months less to complete (Forgues, and Farah, 2013).
The very first project to be completed using IDP in Canada was the moose jaw hospital. It was
completed in time and way under the regular budget by $30 million. In the delivery of the
project, the lean construction approach was used together with the building information
modeling. The team for the project included; Stantec &DeVenny group architects and engineers,
black and McDonald mechanical and electrical, john black and associates, provincial ministry of
health, health authority and Graham and Boldt construction.
Other projects in Canada that have adopted the use of IDP includes; FHHR regional hospital
and the Oakville arena project among others
The relationship between BIM and IPD for project delivery
Building information modeling acts as a digital representation of the functional and physical
attributes of a given facility. The innovation is a shared knowledge resource for information
concerning a particular facility thereby forming a reliable basis of decisions to be made during
the life-cycle of the project. The BIM model provides the potential construction participants with
the opportunity to get a very collaborative approach in design and construction. BIM was
adopted much earlier than IPD, therefore BIM has been used by designers more. BIM has been
noticed to deliver significant benefits when used collaboratively. However, the full collaboration
of BIM with other delivery methods has not been fully featured, but rather in many cases, BIM is
used in isolation (Azhar, 2011).
On the other hand, integrated project delivery is a newly emerging innovation. There are
countable projects which have been completed using this innovation. It is aimed at creating a

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 8
cooperative environment between the different stakeholders. Therefore, the contractors,
designers, owner and principal trade contractors have to come together and sign an agreement.
The project delivery entails quality and timely completion of projects within the budget.
A relationship exists between these two innovations. IPD is entirely different to BIM in that IPD
is a process whereas BIM is a tool. To achieve the full benefits of these two innovations, they
need to be used collaboratively. The application of BIM as a tool is essential in project delivery
for IPD. IPD generally optimizes the project results, contributes to the reduction of waste for a
given project, maximizes efficiency and increases the value of the project to the project owner.
Using the two collaboratively results into reduced risk of defects, decreased waste of materials
and minor issues during construction (Asmar, Hanna, and Loh, 2013).
The collaboration between BIM and IPD increases flexibility especially when there is a change
of circumstance. By combining the advantage of using these two innovations in construction,
more significant and more improved results are achieved (Bryde, Broquetas, and Volm, 2013).
Limitations to applying an IPD for construction projects
Despite the many benefits that come along with the implementation of IPD in construction
projects. The process also has some limitations. The limitations include the impacts and the
effects of the use of the IPD in organizations. Some of the possible changes are the
organizational culture which might have an overall impact on the project delivery. Some of the
limitations include;
For successful project delivery, all the team members are required to understand what is
expected of them. Therefore, they may be needed to pass other tasks to their fellow members
of the team. A lot is required from each member such as availability, functionality, and
innovation. The process will lead to the identification of both the weaknesses and strengths of

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 9
the members. The limitation comes in that the influential members will be forced to work harder
than the other (Ghassemi, and Becerik-Gerber, 2011).
Another limitation is that IPD is not always considered to be a lean delivery model when it
comes to the personal time used. In ensuring that all information and documents are available,
there has to be open communication between the team members. Too much sharing of
information may lead to other people taking advantage of the data and using it against the
project. This will result in a crisis in the project.
Another limitation is that cash flow is required early in the investment. A project cannot be
started without the total cash on the budget physically there (Lahdenperä, 2012). Another
limitation is that when the time is limited, and there is no complexity, it could be impossible to
find the savings which will cover the investment that had to be made upfront.
Part B2, IPD application for the project
Project scenario
TVDSB is a school building which is located at 301 Worley road in London which has been
underused. The school is willing to contract users according to their accommodation review. A
private developer wishes to purchase the property. The developer, however, wants to submit
that application for reworks to be done on the usage of the building and wants to incorporate
other uses. In other words, the developer wants to redesign the school building to fit different
uses other than the previously sued ones. He estimated the budget for the redevelopment to be
about 9 to eleven million.
Different procurement options possible for the projects
Procurement plays a significant role in project design and delivery. This is because the
expected results have to fit in the approximated budget and therefore the purchase of goods

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 10
and services has to be taken into account (Naoum, and Egbu, 2016). In the procurement of
different products and services, the concept of minimizing waste and maximizing value has to
be taken into account. Some of the viable procurement options include;
Restricted tendering is one of the most used methods of procurement. The technique involves
restricted orders on different suppliers. The requests are restricted in that there is a limit of the
number of tenders that can be received. The competition is limited in this case. The procuring
team has to invite the tenderers to place their bids. This further aims at getting the best and not
just the cheapest. The procuring organization identifies the supplies and request them to apply
for tenders and after that gives the bid to the most competitive bidder. This option of
procurement could be favorable for this project in that the procuring entity first selects the
suppliers.
Another procurement option in development of the school building is the request for proposals.
The suppliers have to write a proposal giving details of why they are the best fit for the particular
project. The main aim of using an RFP is to insist on quality. Suppliers have to identify and
understand their ins and outs of quality service management. The procuring department is out
on the hunt for the most valued supplier. When they can be able to identify the best, they will
ensure quality project delivery. The suppliers have to prove that the best fit to be in the project.
they, therefore, are required to submit a financial proposal and another proposal giving details
on their capabilities.
Open tendering is another viable procurement option for this project. In open bidding, the
suppliers are given a chance to apply for tenders. The opportunities are not limited as it is the
case for restricted tendering. Through this method, the procuring department can be able to
achieve the most cost-effective procurement method (Masterman, and Masterman, 2013) . They
can also be able to identify the different varieties in the market and choose the most appropriate

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 11
one. A significant disadvantage of using open tendering is that quality may not be assured and
the process takes a very long time, and this may reduce the productivity of the project delivery.
Strengths and weaknesses of the methods
Restricted tendering
Strengths
 The procurement process takes lesser time compared to open Tendring
 The procuring entity can be able to get the best
 The already chosen tenderers are perceived to be able to provide quality
 It is competitive compared to single sourcing; therefore, the cost is reduced
Weaknesses
 The cost levels of tenders in restricted tendering are much higher compared to a method
like open Tendring. This is because the competition is low since the procuring entity
selects the tenderer
 The process discourages and excludes small contractors that are trying to establish
themselves in the market. This reduces the chances of innovation in the construction
industry.
 There is biasness involved. This is because firms may be excluded from the selected list
of tenderers for unknown reasons and other firms may be on the tenderers list for
unknown reasons too for example personal issues, and lack of awareness.
Request for proposals
Strengths
 Use of this method can introduce the contractor to new suppliers, energy and ideas

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 12
 The process ensures there is a fair selection and further provides the evidence
 The vendors existing in the project will be given a chance t justify their services and
goods
 The method provides a detailed vision of the timeline, the exact product and service
needed how to supply it.
 There is a clearer picture of the prices, availability and the value of the resources.
Weaknesses
 The process is bureaucratic thereby wasting a lot of time for the project
 The method costs more since the procuring entity has to go with the best despite the
price charged.
 The process involves a lot of paperwork which could be tedious
 The formal screening process, meetings, and reviews do take up a lot of project time.
Open tendering
Strengths
 There is high competition regarding prices; therefore, the procuring entity will have
reduced cost
 The method gives the opportunity to new upcoming firms
 There is no biasness as everyone is invited to apply
 There are increased chances for innovation since new technology can be brought on
board.
Weakness
 The project takes a lot of time for completion of the procurement procedure.
 The process also requires that there be strict adherence to the procedures

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 13
 The method does not focus on quality instead it focuses on the cost
 There is a lesser possibility of developing long-term relationships with the suppliers
(BUnDGAARD, KLAZInGA, and VIsseR, 2011).
Risk assessment and summary
The project is exposed to someof risks which tend to reduce the viability of the project. Some of
the significant risks that the project could face is that the expenses may not fit the budget. This
all depends on the procurement method chosen (MacDonald, and Mills, 2013). The developer
has a budget of 9-11 million. This money may not be able to cover the whole redevelopment
causing gaps in the project delivery. The business could run out of funds, and the project
remains incomplete which would be a waste for the developer. Therefore, a more transparent
budget needs to be established to ensure all the expected expenses fit in the 9-11 million. The
redevelopment should be of a higher quality; therefore, the procuring department should ensure
they select the procurement method keenly.
SWOT analysis for the project
Strengths
The project is a redevelopment; therefore, the design that needs to be done is much simpler
than if the plan was to be started from scratch. The project also has a chance to use integrated
project delivery which will reduce the time used for the project as well as reduce the cost.
Another viable strength for this project is that the developer has a high budget with a range set
aside for the project. Therefore, the contractors have to ensure the project fits the budget.
Weaknesses
One major weakness is that the project is a development; therefore, an estimation of the total
amount of money to be used might be easy to determine. The project could end up costing

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 14
more than the estimated amount. Another weakness of the project being a redevelopment is
that the initial plan was not done using integrated project delivery process; therefore adoption of
this process could not fit the project accordingly.
Threats
A major threat is the changes in the economy. The estimated amount of the project cost might
not fit the budget when there are changes in the marketplace. The project could take more time
to complete leading to increasing in prices of the materials to be used. In a nutshell, changes in
the economy could cause an increase in the budget, and the project may overrun the budget.
Opportunity
The most significant possibility is that the project owner can adopt the integrated project
delivery. Through the use of this method, quality can be guaranteed, reduced waste and
distribution within the projected time, as well as the reduced cost, can be achieved.
Projects feasibility
The project viability is positive. The very first thing is to determine if the project is technically
feasible. In this case, the redevelopment of the school building is highly feasible since a more
improved structure can be developed and fit the uses intended. The project is also feasible
within the cost estimated. The estimated cost for the delivery of this project is 9-11 million which
is feasible and can be used to achieve the expected results. The third element in determining
feasibility is to determine if the project is profitable. The redevelopment of the building is
profitable because the developer has an idea of what the current market wants and how it can fit
the current needs rather than the building being underused.
Steps to completing an IPD for the proposed project
For the delivery of the project, the following steps have to be followed:

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 15
Conceptualization: all the stakeholders meet in a formal meeting to analyze all the available
solutions towards the delivery of the proposed project (Lahdenperä, 2012). The developer,
contractor, architect among others gather to ensure a less complicated process is developed.
Design: this is the second step, and all evaluations from the first stage are added to the design
of the project. At this point, goals are set, and all the construction codes will be identified.
Implementation: the third step is implementing the project delivery process. After the design
process is carefully done, design data analysis and computer modeling are done. At this point,
BIM and CAD may be adopted to ensure the expected results are achieved.
Construction: after implementation, construction kicks on. The benefits of using IPD are realized
at this point since the project is expected to run smoothly without delays and conflicts if the
previous steps are carefully followed.
Operation: this is the point of completion of the project. An analysis is done to determine if the
initial goals set are achieved.
Requirements of the set-out stage and first IPD phase
The set-out stage and the first IDP phase are the first steps into project delivery. The first phase
focuses on project planning. At this point, the stakeholders meet in a formal meeting and
analyses expectations of the project (Becerik-Gerbe et. Al. 2011). For this particular project, the
expectations are that the redevelopment to be covered in a budget of 9-11 million. The budget is
planned, and the expected results are derived.
Furthermore, the time for delivery is analyzed. The project timeline has to be set according to
the amount of work to be done. This ensures that there is a reduced waste of resources and
time.
Recommendation to the owner for the project’s viability, feasibility, and procurement

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 16
The redevelopment of the school building was an excellent idea since there will be increased
usage for the building. It is said that this building is being underused therefore an opportunity to
improve is profitable. The project is viable and feasible since there is the adoption of IPD which
ensures quality, timely and cost-effective performance. Through the use of the right
procurement method, the project performance can be achieved accordingly, and the results will
be according to the outlined goals. This, therefore, necessitates that the project only uses IPD in
the redevelopment.

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 17
References
Kent, D. C., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010). Understanding construction industry experience and
attitudes toward integrated project delivery. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 136(8), 815-825.
Forbes, L. H., & Ahmed, S. M. (2010). Modern construction: lean project delivery and integrated
practices. Crc Press.
Azhar, S. (2011). Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges
for the AEC industry. Leadership and management in engineering, 11(3), 241-252.
Lahdenperä, P. (2012). Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project
partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Construction Management
and Economics, 30(1), 57-79.
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013). The project benefits of building information
modelling (BIM). International journal of project management, 31(7), 971-980.
El Asmar, M., Hanna, A. S., & Loh, W. Y. (2013). Quantifying performance for the integrated
project delivery system as compared to established delivery systems. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 139(11), 04013012.
Ghassemi, R., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2011). Transitioning to Integrated Project Delivery:
Potential barriers and lessons learned. Lean construction journal.
Jung, Y., & Joo, M. (2011). Building information modelling (BIM) framework for practical
implementation. Automation in construction, 20(2), 126-133.
Porwal, A., & Hewage, K. N. (2013). Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework
for public construction projects. Automation in Construction, 31, 204-214.

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 18
Korkmaz, S., Riley, D., & Horman, M. (2010). Piloting evaluation metrics for sustainable high-
performance building project delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 136(8), 877-885.
Azhar, S., Khalfan, M., & Maqsood, T. (2015). Building information modelling (BIM): now and
beyond. Construction Economics and Building, 12(4), 15-28.
Fewings, P. (2013). Construction project management: an integrated approach. Routledge.
Baiden, B. K., & Price, A. D. (2011). The effect of integration on project delivery team
effectiveness. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 129-136.
Forbes, L. H., & Ahmed, S. M. (2010). Modern construction: lean project delivery and integrated
practices. Crc Press.
Masterman, J., & Masterman, J. W. (2013). An introduction to building procurement systems.
Routledge.
Lopez, R., & Love, P. E. (2011). Design error costs in construction projects. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 138(5), 585-593.
Naoum, S. G., & Egbu, C. (2016). Modern selection criteria for procurement methods in
construction: A state-of-the-art literature review and a survey. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 9(2), 309-336.
BUnDGAARD, K., KLAZInGA, D., & VIsseR, M. (2011). Traditional procurement methods are
broken: can early contractor involvement be the cure?. Terra et Aqua, 124(1), 25-30.
Li, Y. Y., Chen, P. H., Chew, D. A. S., Teo, C. C., & Ding, R. G. (2011). Critical project
management factors of AEC firms for delivering green building projects in
Singapore. Journal of construction engineering and management, 137(12), 1153-1163.

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 19
Becerik-Gerber, B., Gerber, D. J., & Ku, K. (2011). The pace of technological innovation in
architecture, engineering, and construction education: integrating recent trends into the
curricula. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 16(24), 411-432.
Arroyo, P., Tommelein, I., & Ballard, G. (2012). Deciding a sustainable alternative by ‘choosing
by advantages’ in the AEC industry. In Proc. 20th Conf. of the International Group for
Lean Construction (IGLC), San Diego, CA (pp. 41-50).
Tahrani, S., Poirier, E. A., Aksenova, G., & Forgues, D. (2015). Structuring the adoption and
implementation of BIM and integrated approaches to project delivery across the
Canadian AECO industry: Key drivers from abroad. In Proc., Int. Construction Specialty
Conf. of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
Forgues, D., & Farah, L. M. (2013). Back to the future: Is the canadian AEC education adapting
to the new needs of its industry. CSCE 2013, 9.
Ebrahimi, G., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2018). Perceived Challenges in Implementing Integrated
Project Delivery (IPD): Insights from Stakeholders in the US and Canada for a Path
Forward. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 1-24.
De Marco, A., & Karzouna, A. (2018). Assessing the Benefits of the Integrated Project Delivery
Method: A Survey of Expert Opinions. Procedia computer science, 138, 823-828.
MacDonald, J., & Mills, J. (2013). An IPD approach to construction education. Construction
Economics and Building, 13(2), 93-103.

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY APPLICATION 20