After the Revolution: Understanding a Decade of Change in Project Delivery Systems and Their Impact

The team represented the 11 subsystems with “equations” of a sort, which assigned appropriate parties the following five responsibilities of a project:

1. Project Management – includes cost control, schedule control, change management, and safety.
2. Engineering – includes design detailing, requests for information (RFI) administration, design variations, design administration, and document control.
3. Procurement – includes purchasing and scheduling delivery of major equipment and supplies throughout the project.
4. Construction Management – includes the day-to-day oversight of the project, scheduling of subcontractors, work sequencing, site risk management, and constructability.
5. Construction – includes executing the day-to-day construction of the project.

Thus, as the figure above shows, in Subsystem 1 the owner (O) is responsible for project management, while an EPC firm is responsible for the other four project responsibilities. This is written as “O+EPC” in the context of the report. The following graphic summarizes the 11 equations that resulted from this process.

{^widget|(image)%7e%2fCII%2fmedia%2fPublications%2fpub_images%2fFR-DCC-06_Table2.jpg%3fext%3d.jpg|(name)WatermarkImage|(widget_displayname)WatermarkImage|(width)|(height)^}

As is noted in the report, no subsystem fundamentally altered its PDS to such a degree that it became a fifth PDS (FR-DCC-06, page 23).

Once the user has used the concept file to obtain a clear understanding of the applicability and strengths of each major PDS, the PDS assessment rubric uses a series of driving statements to help the user assess the relative merits of the four principal PDSs.

The research team developed the rubric to show how well each PDS addressed each driving statement by applying the following three-point scale:

The report provides instructions to facilitate tailoring the rubric to consider the unique circumstances a project may experience.

This figure shows a sample series of driving statements and the PDSs’ corresponding scores (FR-DCC-06, page 15).

Once stakeholders have gained an understanding of which principal PDS to use, the report helps them determine which subsystem of that PDS might best suit their project by applying flowcharts such as the one shown in the figure. With each answer, the user assembles the equation of the best-suited subsystem (FR-DCC-06, page 25).

To quantitative compare project performance under all four principal PDS categories, RT-DCC-06 collected and analyzed 96 projects. The team calculated a Project Performance Score (PPS) for each project by using six factors with standardized definitions, as shown in the figure below (FR-DCC-06, page 41).

The team’s analysis showed that IPD was the best performer in four of the six PPS factors, while CM was the best performer in two. (In the figure below, each best score is shown in boldface, while the worst is italicized.) As a result, the team recommends that the DCC sector consider IPD as a significant option when selecting PDSs for upcoming projects.

RT-DCC-06 created a concept file that defines the four most prevalent PDSs:

1. Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
2. Design-Build/Engineer-Procure-Construct (DB/EPC)
3. Construction Manager at Risk or Construction Manager as Agent (CMR or CMA)
4. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
    

The concept file discusses each PDS in turn, providing the following specific information (FR-DCC-06, page 7):

• Definition and description
• Key concepts that distinguish that delivery system from the others
• Indicators of applicability (when to apply)
• Conditions for successful application (how to apply)
• Cautions (what to avoid)
• Definition of success