CIFE Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
CIFE Seed Proposal Summary Page
2012 13 Projects
Proposal Title: Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of Innovations Related
to Energy Efficiency
Principal Investigator(s): Prof. Raymond Levitt;
Prof. Martin Fischer
Research Staff: Andrew Smith, Graduate Student
Proposal Number: (Assigned by CIFE):
2012 03
Total Funds Requested: $66,160
First Submission?
YES
If extension, project URL:
Abstract (up to 150 words):
The building sector is the single largest energy consumer and GHG emitter.
Energy efficient technologies are continually being developed, but the most
impactful technologies have diffused very slowly through the building sector.
Innovations such as intelligent building management systems offer significant
energy savings, but they are integral—i.e., they introduce new modules and
redefine how existing modules (e.g., windows, fans, boilers, chillers, sensor
networks) fit together and are installed in buildings. The horizontally, vertically,
and longitudinally fragmented AEC industry has been shown to pose high barriers
to diffusion of these kinds of integral innovations. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
powerfully integrates project teams to address industry fragmentation, and thus
should remove these barriers to adoption of integral innovations that affect
energy efficiency, water reuse, and other aspects of sustainability. We propose to
investigate whether IPD facilitates the adoption of integral sustainability
enhancing innovations in buildings; and if so, how, and to what extent.
Motivating engineering/business problem:
U.S. buildings are the single largest contributor to energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—
41% of GHG emissions, 40% of primary energy use, and 74% of electricity consumption (US EIA, 2010).
Sustainable innovations – defined for this proposal as improving energy efficiency or GHG emissions – have
proliferated to address this issue. Through such innovations, building energy consumption could be reduced
25 30% and save up to $130 billion annually (Choi Granade, et. al, 2009). However, many of these innovations
have failed to diffuse through the AEC industry.
The innovation story is more nuanced, however: certain energy efficient innovations proliferate, depending
on whether they fit with the extant industry supply chain. We use the definitions of Sheffer (2011) to
categorize innovations: modular vs. integral. Modular innovations fit with existing divisions of work and
specialization. They have standardized interfaces for implementation on a building project (e.g. water efficient
toilet, energy efficient light bulbs). Adding a modular innovation can be as simple as removing the old
component and installing the new one. Integral innovations, in contrast, cross professional and trade
specializations, redefine how work is done in the industry, and break industry standards (e.g. an intelligent
building management system that actuates windows and controls the heating system based on temperature
and humidity data, and weather forecasts). Such innovations offer system wide gains that can vastly surpass
those from potential modular improvements (Ulrich, 1995). But these innovations are more difficult to
implement in AEC, and thus are significantly less likely to be adopted (
Figure 1; Sheffer & Levitt, 2012).
Figure 1: Rates of adoption for modular vs. integral innovations (Sheffer & Levitt, 2012)
The unique characteristics of construction products and the industry structure are at the root of the problem
(Tatum, 1989). Levitt and Sheffer (2011) provide a framework to explain the structural barriers to innovation
in the AEC industry (Figure 2).
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
1
Figure 2: Barriers to Innovation in the Construction Industry. The causes and effects highlighted in red are related
to AEC supply chain fragmentation. These effects should be significantly mitigated by the ways in which IPD fosters
integration and goal alignment in the project team. In addition, liability waivers in IPD agreements could reduce risk
aversion toward innovation (Source: Levitt & Sheffer, 2011).
The costly and durable nature of construction projects in a litigious legal environment like the US puts
designers and contractors at risk for project failures. This creates technological risk aversion, making firms less
likely to try out innovations that are not already established (Nam & Tatum, 1999). The stakes are simply
higher for the AEC industry; this impedes all types of innovation. Construction products are also complex. To
handle this complexity, the mature AEC industry has broken into a network of decentralized, specialized,
mostly local firms. CIFE funded work by Fergusson (1993) showed that the industry is fragmented across three
dimensions: horizontally (across professional and trade specialties), vertically (across building life cycle
phases), and longitudinally (across projects) (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Three Dimensions of Fragmentation in the AEC industry
(Sheffer, 2011; adapted from Fergusson, 1993)
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
2
The fragmented and decentralized industry structure, adversarial traditional project delivery methods, and
one off characteristics of construction products have effectively blocked the diffusion of integral innovations.
The AEC industry has become locked into a suboptimal Nash Equilibrium of performance in many dimensions
(an equilibrium from which a party cannot depart without being worse off). To achieve globally optimal
performance in energy efficiency, cost, schedule, and sustainability, the framework must be changed.
A progressive project delivery method called Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) offers a new collaborative
framework that has potential to address these institutional barriers. IPD re envisions the concept of “Master
Builder” as a collaborative building team of specialists, uniting the key stakeholders (architect, contractor, and
owner) under a single contract. Its key characteristics include: joint project control, early stakeholder
involvement, jointly set targets and values, shared risk and reward, and reduced liability exposure (Ashcraft,
2011). As a method of relational contracting, it encourages collaborative behavior to better handle the
uncertainties and risks of large, complex projects, including risks of innovating. Moreover, “Full IPD”
augments contractual alignment of key participants with lean work processes and shared 3D and 4D BIM
project models to facilitate sharing of information and joint problem solving.
Because IPD counters all three dimensions of fragmentation, a set of obvious research questions arises:
Does IPD affect integral innovation adoption? If yes, to what extent, and how?
Do liability waivers in IPD agreements address other issues that block innovation (e.g. technological
risk aversion)?
How do VDC, clash detection, and other BIM based technologies and work processes facilitate
adoption of innovations?
What would make IPD more effective at encouraging innovation adoption?
No comparative study of the impact of IPD on innovation adoption exists to date. Some deep dive case studies
of IPD projects are available, but do not focus on innovation and lack any systematic comparison to check
cross case patterns. We propose to address this gap in the literature, building a deeper theoretical
understanding and empirical evidence of IPD governance in the context of innovation.
Theoretical and Practical Point of Departure
The proposed research is situated at the intersection of three primary bodies of work: innovation, IPD and
project performance, and relational contracting and social behavior (Figure 4).
Rela onal Contrac ng &
Social Behavior
Innova on in
AEC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Henisz, Levi , & Sco (2012)
Chinowsky (2008)
Chan (2010)
Gross (2011)
Williamson (1979
S nchcombe (1985)
•
•
•
•
Clegg (2002)
Lahdenpera (2012)
Davies (2009)
Gil (2009)
IPD & Project
Performance
•
Taylor (2004,
2007)
Proposed
research
Sheffer (2011)
Sheffer & Levi (2010)
Fergusson (1993)
Tatum (1988)
•
•
•
•
•
Ashcra (2011)
Kent (2010)
Ballard (2012)
Thomsen (2009)
Khanzode (2008,
2010)
Figure 4: Points of Departure for Proposed research
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
3
Innovation in AEC
Fergusson (1993) identified three dimensions of fragmentation in the construction industry – horizontal,
vertical, and longitudinal – that create barriers to adoption of integral innovations.
Horizontal Fragmentation
Under traditional project delivery approaches, many innovations that offer life cycle project gains may not be
cost effective from the perspective of a particular building element or phase, or for a particular firm. An
excellent example is ConXTech, a pre fabricated steel framing structural system that installs faster and
reduces electrical and plumbing installation costs, but costs more than traditional systems. Such innovations
cannot thrive in a trade by trade competitive bidding environment without cross subsidization among trades.
A globally optimal solution is thus displaced by a solution that fits a given project delivery approach in the
fragmented supply chain of the AEC industry. As buildings become more complex, the interactions of building
components become ever more intertwined and this problem escalates in severity.
Vertical Fragmentation
Vertical fragmentation causes each project phase to have a different set of stakeholders, decision makers, and
values. Broken agency describes the self interested behavior of parties in one phase passing costs off to
stakeholders in a subsequent phase to the detriment of the long term user (Henisz, Levitt, & Scott, 2012).
Energy consumption in rental offices presents a classic example: the landlord has little incentive to invest in
energy efficient measures when the tenant pays for energy. A study by the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory indicates this phenomenon inhibits the adoption of technologies that could reduce energy in the
residential sector by 35% (Sheffer, 2011).
Longitudinal Fragmentation
When teams disband at the end of projects (as in the US construction industry) and lose all of their tacit
knowledge about how to work effectively together, organizations have a hard time learning new processes
and innovations—particularly ones that cross firm boundaries (Dubois & Gadde, 2001). CIFE funded research
by Taylor & Levitt (2004, 2007) found that the resulting learning disability slows integral innovation
diffusion. Longitudinal fragmentation also prevents a firm from carrying the benefits of this new knowledge to
subsequent projects; the different group of firms in a subsequent project will not be familiar with the
innovation; one of them must become a champion for the innovation to extend its benefits (Tatum 1988).
Sheffer (2011) showed how horizontal and vertical integration could dramatically increase adoption rates of
integral innovations. On projects with high integration, there is a 542% increase in the adoption rate of
integral innovations (Figure 5). Thus, we argue, the horizontal, vertical (and sometimes longitudinal)
innovation engendered by IPD should have a salutary impact on adoption of integral innovations.
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
4
Figure 5: Effect of integration on innovation adoption (Sheffer, 2011)
The industry fragmented horizontally and vertically to specialize and handle greater complexity (Nam &
Tatum, 1988). As buildings have evolved into ever more discrete sets of modular parts (e.g. chillers, boilers,
sensors, actuated windows), the industry’s supply chain has evolved to mirror its product architecture.
Clusters of firms involved with a single module form together into “swim lanes,” increasing specialization (and
modular innovations) at the expense of cross swim lane communication (and integral innovations) (Baldwin &
Clark, 2003). Design rules and standardization lock the product architecture in place, and there is no longer a
central agent to mandate change (Figure 6), thus making systemic changes to modular components difficult to
coordinate (Langolis & Robertson, 2003).
Figure 6: Decentralization in industry structures
(Sheffer, 2011; adapted from Langolis & Robertson, 2003)
Relational Contracting & Social Behavior
Contracts (ideally) allow parties to work together and reduce the incidence of opportunistic behavior
(Williamson, 1979). For uncertain and idiosyncratic projects, contracts need to move away from clearly
defining how parties should act in certain situations (arm’s length contracts) and toward describing how
parties should collectively and equitably handle new situations (Stinchombe, 1985; Williamson, 1979).
Relational contracts acknowledge the social element of all economic exchanges and leverage it to curtail
opportunistic and self serving behavior. Projects such as Heathrow Terminal 5 – which came in under budget
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
5
and under schedule despite dramatic changes in project scope – demonstrate that relational contracting
allows firms to act collaboratively as a team, because it is in their best interests (Gil, 2009).
Henisz, Levitt, & Scott (2012) identify regulative, normative, and cognitive cultural mechanisms to discourage
responsibility shirking (i.e. broken agency). IPD has great potential to institutionalize these mechanisms into a
relational contracting framework. We propose to study IPD projects using this unified theory of project
governance to understand how broken agency and supply chain fragmentation can be mitigated, thus
encouraging innovation adoption.
IPD & Project Performance
Khanzode (2008, 2010) demonstrated significant improvements in construction efficiency for projects using
coordination tools (Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) and Lean) for Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and
Fire Protection (MEP/FP) systems. IPD is noted as an ideal environment for advanced management methods,
including Building Information Modeling (BIM), VDC, and Lean (Kent, 2010; Lahdenpera, 2012), thus it can
offer substantial benefits in construction efficiency and safety. Preliminary statistics on IPD projects under
construction have begun to substantiate this claim (Ashcraft, 2010).
IPD should, in theory, have a significant impact on the adoption rates of integral innovations. It
reduces horizontal and vertical fragmentation through shared incentives and creation of a "virtual
organization." The framework can mitigate longitudinal fragmentation by offering multi project commitments,
thus addressing the issue of learning disability. We will explore the role of VDC in facilitating communication
about interfaces between the modules in integral innovations.
IPD focuses on the formation of cross functional, high performance teams, characterized by high levels of
creativity, information sharing, and exceptional work output (Ashcraft, 2011; Dougherty, 1992; Van Der Vegt
& Bunderson, 2005; Chinowsky, Diekmann, & Galotti, 2008). The framework for IPD is informed by theory on
team creativity, social exchange, and team cohesion (Hackman, 2011; Homans 1950; Robbins, 2011). IPD
could facilitate the formation of strong social networks and knowledge sharing – both necessary for integral
innovations – through co location, shared incentives, and multi project commitments.
The US legal system pursues joint and several liability for any failures; one provision makes a person liable for
errant information that causes damages. While this seems necessary, it causes firms to regulate their
communication with others carefully; all design data is closely guarded and not shared (AIA, 2005; Ashcraft,
2011). Liability waivers in IPD reduce inter team disputes about cross liability, encouraging free information
flow; the improved legal dynamic could improve team creativity and knowledge sharing.
Methods
My research will involve a deep dive ethnographic study of around eight projects – including a mix of about 4
IPD and 4 traditional projects. Some depth of study will be sacrificed at the expense of procuring a modestly
wider sample size, which is important given the dramatic variability among projects. We will develop a set of
propositions from interviews and observational data, and then transcribe, code, and analyze them using
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).
QCA, developed by Charles Ragin (1987, 2008, is a Boolean (rather than statistical) technique that allows
researchers to induce theories from a limited number of cases—typically about ten—that would be too small
to yield statistically significant findings. It serves to generate, rather than validate, theory about “recipes” —
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
6
sets of conditions (independent variables) that produce observed outcomes (dependent variables). There are
several levels of data discrimination within QCA: crisp set (csQCA), fuzzy set (fsQCA), and multi value
(mvQCA). Based upon the pros and cons summarized by Gross (2011), our research will use a combination of
csQCA and fsQCA. Findings through QCA may later be externally validated through traditional analysis
methods such as large N focused interviews or surveys.
The QCA method balances the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research, but remains closer to case
studies on the spectrum of research methods (Figure 7). It has been used in an increasing number of
construction research projects to systematically build and test hypotheses (Gross, 2011; McAdam et al., 2010;
Chan et al., 2010; Schaffer Boudet et al., 2011; Gross & Garvin, 2011). QCA will allow for a broad study of IPD
projects and its impact on innovation adoption.
Figure 7: Spectrum of research methods (Gross, 2011)
The choice to use first ethnographic and then QCA methods fits the unique needs of this field. Both
ethnographic and QCA methods can capture the complex societal, political, and economic factors that
influence innovation in the AEC industry (Chan et al., 2010). Innovation research benefits from qualitative
study, but also gains insight from comparative study. My method naturally follows from prior research on and
industry experience with IPD as it builds propositions using ethnographic studies and then uses comparative
analysis to bring in additional analytical rigor.
The goal is to develop a rich understanding of how IPD affects the adoption of new technologies – particularly
when they would not have been adopted under a traditional contracting method. Development of “thick
narratives” – compelling stories to explain the mechanisms – will lead into defining propositions which may be
further explored through QCA.
Projects for study will be chosen from the healthcare sector, to keep them comparable. Eight projects will be
divided up across two dimensions: Medical Office Building (low complexity) v. Hospital (high complexity), and
IPD v. non IPD (Table 1). This structure balances the need for theoretical sampling (diversity) and replicative
sampling (comparability) (Eisenhardt, 1989). Industry contact with Howard Ashcraft will help us to find ideal
projects in each category. Leveraging a new collaboration with Finnish researchers, the sample will include
international IPD projects, including a DPR Skanska joint venture project in Sweden.
Table 1: Number of projects per category
Complexity
Integration
IPD
Non IPD
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
MOB (low)
2
2
Hospital (high)
2
2
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
7
Ethnographic research will follow the process for theory building suggested by Eisenhardt’s (1989) classic
paper on case study research: getting started, selecting cases, crafting instruments and protocols, entering the
field, analyzing the data, shaping hypotheses, enfolding literature, and reaching closure.
Data collection will occur in many forms: interviews with key individuals, observation of project meetings and
interactions, collecting documents pertaining to adoption of integral innovations and the challenges faced, and
thorough field notes to track meta thinking. Cases will then be analyzed within and compared with others to
tease out cross case patterns. This analysis leads to the shaping of a priori hypotheses to explain emergent
relationships. Gathering qualitative data is particularly suited for understanding the “why” of emergent
relationships and patterns (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Replicative logic from Yin (1984) is incorporated into the research method. Replicative cases provide a way to
“test” whether the new set of propositions fits with evidence of each case, and thus present opportunities to
refine and extend the theory. The research will go through iterations of theory building and data until
“theoretical saturation” is reached (Eisenhardt, 1989).
According to the theory, IPD should dramatically increase the adoption of integral innovations. It naturally fits
as “the next step” to address institutional barriers to innovation and efficiency. These results – if successful –
would bolster the persuasive case for IPD and encourage its more widespread adoption. This research could
also demonstrate IPD’s suitability for projects focused on energy efficiency or, more broadly, sustainability.
The research would identify the mechanisms that drive innovation adoption under IPD, which could then be
strengthened to refine the IPD delivery approach even further.
Relationship to CIFE goals
My research aligns with the key goals of CIFE sponsors. We discuss these next.
Schedule Performance
Integral innovations like ConXTech promise considerable improvements to schedule, yet are slow to spread
due to competitive bidding by trade and inability to cross subsidize. Freeing the diffusion of such technologies
through IPD – along with the other demonstrated benefits from IPD in terms of team performance and
collaboration – directly advances this goal.
Cost Conformance
Technologies such as building monitoring systems and waste heat recovery offer globally optimal solutions to
energy efficiency. These integral innovations are being held back by the many factors described above. IPD,
through the promotion of integral innovations, can allow projects to achieve far better levels of cost
conformance. It also facilitates the adoption of Lean, BIM, and VDC practices with significant implications for
enhancing productivity and reducing rework beyond levels that can be achieved with traditional, project
delivery approaches.
Sustainability
Construction industry fragmentation, by impeding the diffusion of energy efficient technologies, clearly works
against sustainability goals. Sustainable technologies often require a holistic approach that redefine how
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
8
systems interact, thus making them integral innovations. IPD should, in theory, create a framework to
accommodate their adoption in a way not possible through traditional approaches.
This research also aligns with the goals of CII and FIATECH. CII favors research on lean principles in
construction, leveraging technology for construction productivity, project delivery and contract strategy, and
achieving learning organizations in the EPC industry, which all relate to my work. FIATECH has honored several
CIFE related individuals and firms with STAR awards in 2012 for advancement of innovation in the industry.
Additionally, several CETI awards from FIATECH have been given to IPD projects, including DPR’s UCSF Medical
Center in 2011 and Sutter Health in 2008.
Industry Involvement
We have obtained agreement for advice, access and data from: Mr. Howard Ashcraft (of Hanson Bridgett);
DPR Inc.; and Skanska; all three have agreed to be initial industry collaborators. Our collaboration with Mr.
Ashcraft, an influential figure in the definition and implementation of IPD contracts and delivery work
processes, has already begun. He will leverage his extensive industry connections to provide us with rich data
on the (relatively) small number of IPD projects in existence. Mr. Dean Reed of DPR and Dr. James Becker of
Skanska have pledged access to data, metrics, meetings, and key participants on their firms’ IPD and non IPD
projects. A large technology company in the Bay Area (“TechCo”) – that wishes to remain anonymous at this
time – has agreed in principle to allow us to observe the project kickoff meetings and subsequent organization
of a large new campus project, which will feature IPD with the intention to adopt some radically innovative
building technologies related to sustainability goals.
This research will dovetail with closely related research on IPD delivery by Prof. Riitta Smeds’ SimLab research
group at Aalto University in Finland. Students from Stanford and Aalto will share data and collaborate in data
gathering on several of the case studies and exchange visits by the teams will be carried out. This
collaboration will control for national differences in industry organization and culture to give the research
more global generality. We have included travel budget for the Stanford graduate student to participate in
interviews and data gathering on one project in Sweden. If this project proposal is successful, we intend to
seek additional funding from the International Divisions of both countries’ National Science Foundations to
extend the cross national collaboration. Such funding has been relatively routinely granted in the past.
Research plan, schedule and risks
The schedule and milestones are summarized in Table 2. The research will begin Summer 2012. Initiation of
case studies will be staggered, with the more complex cases begun earlier to allow more time. Our research
report will be completed in Spring 2012 in time to prepare funding proposals to NSF and other sources. A fifth
period is included to indicate steps beyond completion of the report and proposals.
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
9
Table 2: Research schedule, milestones, and activities
# Period
1 Sum
2012
2 Aut
2012
3 Win
2013
4 Spr
2013
Milestone
- Arrange access to data sources
-
-
5 Aut
2013
-
Activities
- Contact (Finnish group), lay out plan for research
collaboration
- Define schedule with Howard Ashcraft
- Embed into “TechCo” project
Initiate case studies 1 3 (high
- Collect data
complexity)
- Summarize and discuss observations
Initiate case studies 4 6 (low
- Continue work with case studies 1 3
complexity)
- Repeat steps to initiate studies 4 6
- Progress report on studies 1 3
Wrap up case studies
- Complete data collection
- Submit draft of findings
Complete report
- Finalize research report
- Evaluate progress and define new schedule for
future
Submit NSF proposal
- Submit proposal to NSF for additional funding
Submit follow on CIFE funding
- Apply for 2nd year CIFE funding
proposal
Complete data analysis
- Prepare data tables for QCA analysis
Initiate QCA process
- Begin descriptive theory coding process for QCA
Eisenhardt (1989) provides a concise overview of the risks of ethnographic research: small sample size,
idiosyncratic projects, and overly complex theory. Choosing a larger sample size than normal and following up
with QCA on an even wider sample will help address risks with small samples and idiosyncratic theory.
Selecting projects across ranges of complexity and integration should balance the need for diverse and
replicative sampling. QCA should help us distinguish important cross case relationships from idiosyncratic
ones (and thus achieve parsimony) by virtue of its combinatory logic, and larger sample size.
Next steps
The preliminary phase of our research funded by this seed grant will help to refine our understanding of
whether and how IPD impacts innovation adoption. With eight case studies of reasonable depth, the QCA
coding process can be initiated in conjunction with more efficient and focused data collection on additional
projects. Following this work, the sample size will be expanded to a larger N study with more focused
questions.
The PIs, Professors Raymond Levitt and Martin Fischer, have successful track records of leveraging past CIFE
seed grants to develop strong proposals for substantial external funding. The work in this seed phase will thus
culminate with a proposal to NSF or other sources, in order to secure long term funding for future research in
this area.
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
10
Bibliography
American Institute of Architects (2005). Intelligent building models and downstream use. Comments of the
Technology in Architectural Practice Advisory Group submitted for the 2007 revisions to AIA Documents
B141 and A201.
Ashcraft, H. (2009). The IPD Framework. http://www.hansonbridgett.com/Publications/pdf/2009 12 29 ipd
framework.aspx. Accessed Feb 2012.
Ashcraft, H. (2010). Integrated Project Delivery: Getting under the hood. Presentation.
Ashcraft, H. (2011). IPD Teams: Creation, Organization, & Management. Unpublished book chapter.
Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ballard, G. & Tommelein, I. (2012). Lean management methods for complex projects. Engineering Project
Organization Journal, 2(1), 85 96.
Chan, H., Levitt, R.L. and Garvin, M.J. (2010). Collective effect of strategic, cultural, and institutional factors on
concession renegotiations. Paper presented at the 2010 Engineering Project Organization Conference,
South Lake Tahoe, CA, November 4 6.
Chinowsky, P., Diekmann, J., & Galotti, V. (2008). Social network model of construction. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 134(10), 804 812.
Choi Granade, H., Creyts, J., Derkach, A., Farese, P., Nyquist, S., & Ostrowski, K. (2009). Unlocking energy efficiency
in the U.S. economy: McKinsey & Company.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science,
3(2), 179 202.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. (2001). The construction industry as a loosely coupled system–implications for productivity
and innovativity.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532
550.
Fergusson, K. J. (1993). Impact of integration on industrial facility quality. Unpublished Dissertation, Stanford
University.
Gil, N. (2009). Developing cooperative project client supplier relationships: How much to expect from relational
contracts. California Management Review, Winter 2009.
Gross, M. (2010). Aligning public–private partnership contracts with public objectives for transportation infra
structure. Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Tech.
Gross, M. and Garvin, M. (2011). Structuring PPP toll road contracts to achieve public pricing objectives. Engineering
Project Organization Journal, 1(2), 143–56.
Hackman, R. (2011). Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems. Berrett Koehler.
Henisz, W., Levitt, R., & Scott, R. (2012). Toward a unified theory of project governance: economic, sociological and
psychological supports for relational contracting. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 2(1).
Henisz, W. and Levitt, R. (2012). Normative and Cognitive Institutional Supports for Relational Contracting. EPOS
Special Issue on Social and Management Science Foundations of Project Organization Research, 2(1).
Homans, G. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597 606.
Jordan, E., Gross, M., Javernick Will, A., & Garvin, M. (2011). Use and misuse of qualitative comparative analysis,
Construction Management and Economics, 29(11), 1159 1173.
Kent, D. & Becerik Gerber, B. (2010). Understanding construction industry experience and attitudes toward
Integrated Project Delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 815 825.
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
11
Khanzode, A. (2008). Benefits and lessons learned of implementing building Virtual Design and Construction (VDC)
technologies for coordination of Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) systems on a large healthcare
project. ITcon, 13, 324 342.
Khanzode, A. (2010). An integrated, virtual design and construction and lean (IVL) method for coordination of MEP.
Unpublished Technical Report 187. Stanford University.
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.
Langolis, R. N., & Robertson, P. (2003). Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the
microcomputer and stereo component industries. In R. Garud, A. Kumaraswamy & R. N. Langolis (Eds.),
Managing in the modular age: Architectures, networks, and organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Levitt, R.E. and D. Sheffer (2011). “Innovation in Modular Industries: Implementing Energy Efficient Innovations in
US Buildings,” Proceedings of Conference on Energy, Organizations and Society, UC Davis, October 4 5,
2011.
McAdam, D., Schaffer Boudet, H., Davis, J., Orr, R.J., Scott, W.R. and Levitt, R.E. (2010). Site fights: explain ing
opposition to pipeline projects in the developing world. Sociological Forum, 25(3), 401–427.
Nam, C., & Tatum, C. (1988). Major characteristics of constructed products and resulting limitations of construction
technology. Construction Management and Economics, 6(2), 133 147.
Nam, C., & Tatum, C. (1989). Toward Understanding of Product Innovation Process in Construction. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 115(4), 517
Nam, C., & Tatum, C. (1997). Leaders and champions for construction innovation. Construction Management and
Economics, 15(3).
Ragin, C. (1987). The Comparative Method. Los Angeles, CA: The Regents of the University of California.
Ragin, C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Robbins, S., Judge, T., Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, 11th Ed.
Sheffer, D.A. (2011). Innovation in modular industries: implementing energy efficient innovations in US buildings.
Ph.D. dissertation. http://crgp.stanford.edu/Sheffer_Dissertation_2011.pdf. Accessed Sep 2011.
Sheffer, D. and R. Levitt (2012). Fragmentation inhibits innovation: Overcoming professional and trade lock in,”
CRGP Working Paper #0070.
http://crgp.stanford.edu/BRI%20Professionalism%20Issue_ShefferLevitt_V%2012 01 17.pdf.
Stinchcombe, A. (1959). Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: A comparative study. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 4(2), 168 187.
Stinchcombe, A. & Heimer, C. (1985). Contracts as Hierarchical Documents. Organization Theory and Project
Management. Universitetsforlaget AS: Norwegian University Press.
Tatum, C. (1986). Potential mechanisms for construction innovation.
Tatum, C. (1989). Organizing to increase innovation in construction firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 115(4), 602 617.
Taylor, J. E., & Levitt, R. E. (2004). Understanding and managing systemic innovation in project based industries. In
D. Slevin, D. Cleland & J. Pinto (Eds.), Innovations: Project Management Research (pp. 83 99). Newton
Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
Taylor, J. E., & Levitt, R. E. (2007). Innovation alignment and project network dynamics: An integrative model for
change. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 22 35.
Ulrich, K. T. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24(3), 419 440.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2010). “Architecture 2030.”
http://architecture2030.org/the_solution/buildings_solution_how. Accessed Sep 2011.
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
12
Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance
of collective team identification. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532 547.
Williamson, O. (1979). Transaction cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and
Economics, 22(2), 233 261.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
PI:
Raymond Levitt
Co PI: Martin Fischer
Assessing the Impact of IPD on Adoption of
Innovations Related to Energy Efficiency
13
Raymond E Levitt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dean Reed [DeanR@dpr.com]
Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:45 PM
Raymond E Levitt
John Kunz; Jim Becker; Eric Lamb; George Pfeffer; Atul Khanzode
Re: Request for Access to Project Data and Interviews for CIFE Seed Proposal
Ray
Thank you for thinking of us. DPR will do everything we can to support this research, including granting access to data,
metrics, meetings and key participants on IPD and non IPD projects. Please let me know if you'd like a letter of support.
Best,
Dean
D e a n R e e d | DPR Construction | w w w . d p r . c o m
650-207-3486 | Skype: deansreed
We Exist to Build Great Things
Confidential Business Information – Not for Public Release
From: Raymond E Levitt <rel@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:09:59 0700
To: Dean Reed <deanr@dpr.com>, Jim Becker <jim.becker@skanska.com>
Cc: John Kunz <kunz@stanford.edu>, 'Raymond E Levitt' <rel@stanford.edu>
Subject: Rewuest for Access to Project Data and Interviews for CIFE Seed Proposal
Dear Dean and Jim –
I am developing a proposal to submit in the current round of CIFE seed research to study the effect of IPD project
delivery on the likelihood of adoption of innovations that are systemic enough to require multiple engineers, vendors
and specialty contractors in the supply chain to change their product interfaces and/or delivery approaches. A prime
example is intelligent central energy management systems, like the one in our Y2E2 Building that took 2 years of
tweaking after the building had been “commissioned” to reach anywhere near its design level of performance. Multiple
systems of this kind are involved in hospitals and other complex buildings.
In this study, we are proposing to look at a sample of more or less complex buildings (e.g., hospitals vs. MOBs) that have
been built using conventional project delivery approaches vs. IPD approaches (full or partial use of multiparty contracts,
lean management methods, BIM integration , etc.). The goal would be to understand the impact of various elements of
IPD on decision making, learning across projects, the adoption of costly subsystems like ConXTech structural systems
that can cross subsidize other trades (e.g., electrical and mechanical can prefabricate larger conduit and pipe spools)
save time in completion, etc.
I am writing to ask if your company would agree to provide us access to data on project attributes, performance metrics
like cost, safety, rework %, adoption of systemic innovations, etc., and access to observe meetings and interview key
participants for comparable projects delivered via IPD vs. conventional delivery approaches.
1
Howard Ashcraft is working with us to help us assemble a list of IPD projects that we can consider, and one or more of
your companies’ projects will very likely be on that list. This kind of support from CIFE members would obviously be
helpful to us in securing an award, and would be even more helpful in carrying out the intended research.
All I am asking for at this point is an expression of willingness, in principle, to provide this kind of access and data under
appropriate non disclosure protocols. We could disguise projects, people and locations, and could protect confidential
data by normalizing it and aggregating it. Your company could have 30 days to review any of our publications or
presentations and reasonably request us to remove or redact any confidential or proprietary data from the
presentations or publications. And so on.
Your response by the end of this week or very early next week would be much appreciated, since the CIFE proposals are
due next Wed.
I’d be happy to discuss this further with you if you like.
Best,
_Ray Levitt
2
Raymond E Levitt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Becker, Jim [Jim.Becker@skanska.com]
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:12 AM
Raymond E Levitt; Dean Reed
John Kunz
RE: Rewuest for Access to Project Data and Interviews for CIFE Seed Proposal
Ray
Skanska will be pleased to participate. Hope to see you at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting.
Jim Becker
Corporate Senior Vice President
Skanska USA Building
www.skanska.com
253 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210, United States
Phone
+1 617-574-1450
Mobile
+1 617-293-7704
Fax
+1 617-574-1313
Think twice before you press "print."
This message, including any attachments hereto, may contain privileged or confidential information and is sent solely for the attention and use of the
intended addressee(s). If you are not an intended addressee, you may neither use this message nor copy or deliver it to anyone. In such case, you
should immediately destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Thank you.
From: Raymond E Levitt [mailto:rel@stanford.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:10 PM
To: 'Dean Reed'; Becker, Jim
Cc: 'John Kunz'; 'Raymond E Levitt'
Subject: Rewuest for Access to Project Data and Interviews for CIFE Seed Proposal
Dear Dean and Jim –
I am developing a proposal to submit in the current round of CIFE seed research to study the effect of IPD project
delivery on the likelihood of adoption of innovations that are systemic enough to require multiple engineers, vendors
and specialty contractors in the supply chain to change their product interfaces and/or delivery approaches. A prime
example is intelligent central energy management systems, like the one in our Y2E2 Building that took 2 years of
tweaking after the building had been “commissioned” to reach anywhere near its design level of performance. Multiple
systems of this kind are involved in hospitals and other complex buildings.
In this study, we are proposing to look at a sample of more or less complex buildings (e.g., hospitals vs. MOBs) that have
been built using conventional project delivery approaches vs. IPD approaches (full or partial use of multiparty contracts,
lean management methods, BIM integration , etc.). The goal would be to understand the impact of various elements of
IPD on decision making, learning across projects, the adoption of costly subsystems like ConXTech structural systems
that can cross subsidize other trades (e.g., electrical and mechanical can prefabricate larger conduit and pipe spools)
save time in completion, etc.
I am writing to ask if your company would agree to provide us access to data on project attributes, performance metrics
like cost, safety, rework %, adoption of systemic innovations, etc., and access to observe meetings and interview key
participants for comparable projects delivered via IPD vs. conventional delivery approaches.
1
Howard Ashcraft is working with us to help us assemble a list of IPD projects that we can consider, and one or more of
your companies’ projects will very likely be on that list. This kind of support from CIFE members would obviously be
helpful to us in securing an award, and would be even more helpful in carrying out the intended research.
All I am asking for at this point is an expression of willingness, in principle, to provide this kind of access and data under
appropriate non disclosure protocols. We could disguise projects, people and locations, and could protect confidential
data by normalizing it and aggregating it. Your company could have 30 days to review any of our publications or
presentations and reasonably request us to remove or redact any confidential or proprietary data from the
presentations or publications. And so on.
Your response by the end of this week or very early next week would be much appreciated, since the CIFE proposals are
due next Wed.
I’d be happy to discuss this further with you if you like.
Best,
_Ray Levitt
2