i want 700 words of article summary. please see 3 attachments
EMERALD_ECAM_ECAM629215 2432..2446 Critical success factors for implementing integrated construction project delivery Seoung-Wook Whang School of Architecture Computing and Engineering, University of East London, London, UK Kenneth Sungho Park Aston University, Birmingham, UK, and Sangyong Kim School of Architecture, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, The Republic of Korea Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) to implement integrated project delivery (IPD) systems in the Korean construction industry. Design/methodology/approach – This study categorized potential CSFs and analyzed them using factor analysis and multiple regression analysis to choose the best ones based on responses from Korean construction experts. Findings – In total, 29 potential factors were selected and categorized into 7 CSFs using factor analysis. Originality/value – The outcomes of the study are useful as a reference for applying the IPD system in different developing countries and mid-sized construction industries. Keywords Management, Collaborative working, Project delivery, Construction management, Construction team Paper type Conceptual paper For increasing large and complex construction projects to be carried out efficiently, a collaborative execution process needs to be devised to integrate and manage the vast amount of information and production activities. For this to be successful in complex construction projects, an integrated project delivery (IPD) system has been applied, in which all project participants work together as a team from the outset. The aim of this study is to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) to implement IPD systems in the Korean construction industry. To this end, 29 potential factors were selected and categorized into seven CSFs using factor analysis. A multiple regression analysis shows four factors are essential among seven CSFs to implement IPD systems. They are “Reform of contract law and adoption of appropriate IPD agreement form (CSF1),” “Team building and management for collaborative business process (CSF2),” “Early involvement and enhanced role of key participants (CSF3)” and “Improvement and utilization of building information modeling (BIM) for collaborative process of IPD (CSF4).” The outcomes of the study could be useful as a reference for applying the IPD system in Korea reflecting specific characteristic of the construction sector. These CSFs also could be applied in other developing countries that have similar structures of the construction industry. In addition, identified CSFs also could be analyzed and applied in other mid-sized construction industries by the resetting of the analysis environment in accordance with their specific situation for implementing IPD. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 26 No. 10, 2019 pp. 2432-2446 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0969-9988 DOI 10.1108/ECAM-02-2019-0073 Received 1 February 2019 Revised 21 March 2019 Accepted 30 April 2019 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm This work was supported by the 2017 Yeungnam University Research Grant. 2432 ECAM 26,10 1. Introduction The American Institute of Architects (AIA) launched the IPD technique for construction projects to advance procurement systems using seamless integration and collaboration between project participants (AIA National and AIA California Council, 2007). Based on contractual and behavioral principles, IPD emphasizes mutual respect and effective communication for the implementation of a project. Individual accomplishment in this new procurement system is subject to the sharing of information, knowledge, experiences, frameworks, business structures and practices throughout the life of the project (Lahdenpera, 2012). Unlike traditional delivery systems, the main project participants are involved from the initial pre-design stage, including clients, architects and contractors, who share their own distinct skills and knowledge to reduce project risk (Kent and Becerik-Gerber, 2010). However, the IPD system is still not prominent in the global construction industry. Only a small number of case studies have been carried out in the USA (AIA, 2010). There is limited explicit data on the effectiveness of IPD, it is challenging to encourage emerging construction industries to apply the IPD system in common practice. In addition, IPD is still in the test stage in developing construction sectors such as South Korea, and there is a lack of information on actual plans for applying IPD. Since the IPD was invented assuming the collaboration of the individual construction parts for a single project from early stage as a one team, it is highly likely that it will be successful in an overall fully matured and experienced built environment. For countries including South Korea that still do not have enough competency in soft skill, such as contract management or risk management, there is careful research and practical feedback needed. However, there are still not many actual project cases even in a country in which IPD has been developed. Thus, determining the CSF is necessary to introduce IPD successfully. It is also necessary to determine the kinds of projects where it is more difficult or impossible to apply IPD. The aim of this study is to identify the CSFs needed to implement an IPD in a developing construction industry. We categorized potential CSFs and analyzed them using factor analysis and multiple regression analysis to choose the best ones based on responses from Korean construction experts. This study was carried out based on the Korean construction environment for the application of IPD. However, our research findings may also be useful in other emerging construction industries or developing countries that do not yet have a fully mature market environment. 2. Literature review 2.1 Project delivery in general Project delivery comprises a series of contractual relationships that coordinate all the components of a project (Cho et al., 2010). Conventional project delivery systems (PDS) are based on a transactional contract, and examples include the fixed price lump sum, guaranteed maximum price and cost-plus-fee systems. Halpin (2006) and El Asmar et al. (2013) consider a PDS to be an advancement or association of a framework that is needed to fulfill a project. They considered the establishment of a formal contract and casual connections between project partners to be important. According to Hanna (2010), a PDS is a framework that characterizes the relationship between different parties in an agreement, and it PDS plays a fundamental role in increasing mutual trust and clearly defining relationships between project participants based on a written agreement. However, in recent years, other academic researchers and industrial experts have argued that there is limited cooperation and advancement when using a conventional PDS in actual construction projects (Middlebrooks, 2008; Swarup et al., 2011). Researchers have tried to develop procurement systems to complement PDS for complex and large-scale projects. Forbes and Ahmed (2011) suggest that PDS agreements only reward or punish the performance of individual team members who are bond by a contract without consideration of the effects on the entire team’s performance. 2433 Integrated construction project delivery According to the AIA et al. (2010), relational contracts are more valuable than transaction contract. They considered that transactional contracts are likely to lead to avoidance of responsibility and to conflict between contracting parties, whereas relational contracts help with cooperation, collaboration and reliance among the principle project stakeholders. Common difficulties and potential conflicts in transactional contracts can be reduced by multi-party contracts (Thomsen, 2009). Integrated multi-party contracts have been used as a way of complementing PDS in ambiguous or complicated projects, which involve many different project participants and execution systems. 2.2 Integrated project delivery IPD is one promising relational contract[1] system that provides a platform for projects. Comparing to the traditional PDSs tightened by strict terms and condition, since relational contract system is structured by the mutual trust rather than contract clauses, it has fewer changes and a tighter schedule than traditional PDSs (AIA National and AIA California Council, 2007). The AIA defines IPD as an approach to project delivery that incorporates people, a framework, business structures and practices into one system. The greatest difference between IPD and traditional PDSs (excluding integrated multi-party contracts) is the capacity to shift work volume from the introductory periods of the design phase to the construction process, by which all essential contributions are supported by different key stakeholders (Ilozor and Kelly, 2012). From the initial project stage, main project players including owners, architects and contractors share their experience, technology, knowledge and even foreseeable risks and benefits. With integrated multi-party contracts between project team members, relationships can become more reliable, cooperative and respectful (AIA et al., 2010; El Asmar et al., 2013). According to the AIA California Council (2007), the benefits of IPD include collective backup capabilities and problem-area identification by different project members, which increases the effectiveness of project management. Various experts with different technical backgrounds work together within one system, and even minor issues that do not seem critical initially but have a serious impact later on can be managed in advance. This makes the problems to be recognized and controlled in advance. An absence of responsibilities, poor group collaboration and unsatisfying interfaces are some of the issues in a traditional procurement project (Volk et al., 2014). One approach to these issues is to understand the overall procedure of project improvement. To ensure this, the application of IPD supported by different project management tools is recommended, such as a project management information system (PMIS) or BIM. These management tools are useful for supplementing the issues of collaboration and integration, and they are expected to realize the concept of IPD practically over the entire life of the project. Monteiro et al. (2014) suggest that the goals of IPD can be fully achieved by supporting other project management tools (such as BIM). IPD is recognized as a successful delivery system that can be most effective when it is used with BIM. BIM can be used to manage rich, object-oriented, intelligent and parametric digital representation information for construction projects. To carry out a project successfully, there is a need for all project participants to cooperate as a team, including clients, design teams, quantity surveyors, contractors and specialists. These individual experts can effectively pool their skills and experiences together in the IPD system, through which they share the benefits and risks of the project. Using different management tools, IPD can integrate different types of information, work processes and activities into a single project boundary. 3. Methodology The research process used in this study is shown in Figure 1. The research steps involve gathering data, maintaining data criteria and determining the success factors of IPD. The limitations of the existing PDS and potential success factors for IPD were first determined, 2434 ECAM 26,10 and then semi-structured interviews and questionnaire surveys were carried out to determinate the prerequisites for implementation of IPD that are used as dependent variables in multiple regression analysis and to ensure reliable data collection. Factor analysis and multiple regression analysis were then conducted to identify critical IPD factors that can be used in various developing construction industries. The study began with IPD data and reports published by the AIA, National Association of State Facilities Administrators and Associated General Contractors of America (e.g. AIA National and AIA California Council, 2007; AIA California Council, 2007; AIA et al.,