ADOPTABILITY OF INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY (IPD) CONCEPTS IN THE NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Abstract

The dismal performance of the global construction industry has been a major source of worry for practitioners and construction stakeholders. The Nigerian Construction industry (NCI) has not been immune from these problems also as it is plagued with project abandonment, poor project analysis and management, poor quality of work, adversarial relationship, litigation amongst others. Integrated project delivery (IPD) is a relatively new project delivery approach which serves as a response to the poor performance of the construction industry as regards failure of projects achieving desired outcomes such as cost and time overrun. IPD is influenced by the extensive collaboration with emphasis on the exploitation of relevant technologies and lean construction for continuous improvement in project delivery. The study investigated the possibility of adopting IPD concepts and principles in the NCI with the view to addressing some of the pertinent problems of the industry such as wastes and adversarial relationships. 87 being a sum of the population were administered questionnaire of which 75 duly filled and returned questionnaires were used in the analysis. The analysis were presented in tables where they were ranked using relative importance index. Lack of awareness of the concept of IPD with a RII of 0.70 ranked as the major barrier to the adoption of the concept. Respondents indicated collaborative decision making with a RII of 0.71 and which is one of the characteristics of IPD was relevant in improving project delivery. The study concluded that awareness of the concept of IPD was relatively low and recommended the propagation of the concept by professional bodies through inter – professional workshop and symposia as a way of dissemination and diffusion of awareness of the concept which would assist to create and encourage further research to its adoption.

Table of Contents

Declaration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii

Certification ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii Dedication …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv Acknowledgement ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. v Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vi

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………ix

1.0  INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

1.1Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

1.2Statement of the Research Problem …………………………………………………………………………… 3

1.3Justification for the Study …………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

1.4Aim and Objectives …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6

1.4.1Aim           ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

1.4.2Objectives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 1.5Scope and Limitation ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 1.5.1Scope  …………………………………………………………………… Error! Bookmark not defined.

• 2Limitation ………………………………………………………………….. Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.0    LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

2.1Integrated Project Delivery ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

2.2Definition of IPD …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

• 1Lean Construction ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17

2.2.2Building Information Modeling (BIM) ……………………………………………………………………… 19

• 3Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA)……………………………………………………………………… 20

2.3Forms of IPD Agreements ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 22

2.4Principles of IPD …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25

2.5Characteristics of IPD …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27

2.6Drivers of IPD ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32

2.6Potential Benefits of IPD …………………………………………………………………………………………. 34

2.7IPD Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 35

3.0    METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39

3.1Research Approach …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39

3.2Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39

3.3Population of the Study ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 40 Data Analysis Techniques ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 41

• 1Likert Scale …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42

3.4.2Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 43

4.0    DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS ………….. 44

4.2Survey Response …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44

5.0   SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………. 58

5.1Summary of findings ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 58

5.2Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 59

5.3Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60

REFRENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 62

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………56

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Comparison of the characteristics of IPD concepts in the NCI…              21

Table 2.2 Differences in the progression from traditional project delivery

approaches to full IPD………………………………………………             22 Table 4.1 Distribution of Respondents……………………………………       34

Table 4.2 Categorization of Firms…………………………………………              35

Table 4.3 Respondents Experience…………………………………………             35

Table 4.4 Respondents Awareness and Involvement of IPD Concepts in the NCI 36

Table 4.5 Consideration for entering an IPD Project with other firms………          37

Table 4.6 Barriers to the adoption of IPD in the NCI………………………            39

Table 4.7 Relevance of IPD in addressing some problems of the NCI……              41

Table 4.8 Relevance of some characteristics of IPD in improving project delivery 42

Table 4.9 Drivers/Facilitators for the adoption of IPD in the NCI……………         44

Table 4.10 Role of stakeholders in the demand for IPD……………………            45

Table 4.11 Respondents perception of factors influencing their decision in

adopting IPD………………………………………………………               46

CHAPTER ONE 1.0                                                          INTRODUCTION 1.1                                                        Background

The global construction industry has been severally criticized for its under-performance, ever dwindling productivity and the failure of its delivery methods (Egan 1998). Emmit, Mossman and Smith (2011) stated that the fragmented nature as well its project delivery approach has beenthe major concerns as the different players in a project often do not consider themselves as a team but rather each trying to maximize its profit and protect its interest without considering its impact on other members of the project and the resultant backlash on the entire project. Govender, Nyagwaski, Smallwood and Allen (2018) argued that professionals of the CI have become accustomed to traditional methods of project delivery with its practices and systems which have not always produced best value for

clients.

Latham (1994) corroborated that the construction industry in its current state is highly fragmented, with adversarial relationship between the various parties in projects coupled with its wastes, decreasing productivity and efficiency.Conklin (2005), stated thus “construction may best be described as a wicked problem, fragmented by the complexity of the subject, social interactions and latent technology, relating to losses on projects by owners, lack of appreciation of design quality by architect and engineers, with contractors bearing a great deal of financial risks in the process”.

According to Emmitt, Sander andChristoffersen(2005) the reason for failure of current delivery methods is the rigidity in delineating responsibilities with much elaboration on the consequences of failure thereby reinforcing risk abating behaviour, lack of interest by team members to engage in collaborative process and the promotion of adversarial construction cultures to the detriment of stakeholders.Alshawi, (2002) corroborated this by explaining that the construction industry promotes a stage-controlled process in which the life cycle of projects are divided into many isolated stages. This approach impedes transfer of information from one stage to another between participants.Traditional delivery methods seem to have failed due to the ever decreasing productivity, excess wastes and poor delivery of the construction industry. This calls for a paradigm shift in the approach of projects.

Similarly, the Nigerian construction industry is plagued with various problems hampering its efficiency and productivity, notably among them are project abandonment, poor project analysis and management, poor quality of work, adversarial relationship, litigation, arbitration, general feeling of apprehension between project participants

(Aneikwu&Okpala, 1998; Ameh&Osegbo, 2011; Okuwoga 1998 and Aibinu&Jagboro, 2002). These problems clearly show the need for a change in the industry for more efficiency and productivity improvement. Thomsen (2010) attest that the construction industry requires an alternative approach to its delivery of projects, one which promotes collaboration among project teams, enabling multiple parties in a project to agree to a common set of terms and expectation, based on the principles of trust and mutual respect, mutual benefit and reward, collaborative decision – making and early involvement of key project participants, while leveraging new technologies such as BIM. This is the concept that drives integrated project delivery (IPD).

“Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a response to the extensive collaboration required for projects that must be influenced by tiers of people in multiple organizations with emphasis on Lean Construction, Building Information Modeling(BIM), Project Management Information Systems(PMIS) and continuous improvement” (Thomsen, 2010).

American Institute of Architects, AIA (2007) defined IPD as a project delivery approach that integrates people, system, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to reduce waste and optimize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and construction.

Mathew and Howell (2005) defined IPD as a relational contracting approach that employs both transactional and relational contracting approaches to align the interests of all the primary team members in such a way that the team members can be integrated for optimum project performance.

Oyewobi, Ibironke, Ganiyu and Ola – Awo (2011) asserts that there is a higher demand for improved services from the Nigerian construction industry, from increasing sophistication of client‟s requirement, increase in size, design complexity and construction difficulty. They stated further that traditional approach of projects no longer meets client needs. As such, there is the urgent need for a paradigm shift in approach, understanding and delivery of projects. IPD stands as a panacea to the current problems bedeviling the Nigerian construction industry.

1.2                                  Statement of the Research Problem

The global construction industry has severally been criticized for its under-performance, ever reducing productivity and failure of its delivery methods (Aouad, Cooper &Kagioglou 2001). The Nigerian construction industry has neither been spared from such criticism. As opined by AmehandOsegbo (2011), the Nigerian construction industry is plagued with various problems affecting its efficiency and productivity resulting in a chain of resultant ripple effects on project outcomes. Abubakar, Ibrahim, KadoandBala (2014) asserted that the failure of the construction industry to its pursuance of individual interest in isolated silos on a project. Zhang, Cheng and Fan (2015) that this is as a result of the position of project members who view themselves as only responsible for their own tasks while maximizing their personal profit in their area of knowledge and expertise.

Al – Amar (2012) opined that IPD aligns different stakeholders‟ interests and objectives while collaboratively involving key participants early in the lifecycle of the project timeline. Mathew and Howell (2005) described IPD as a clever solution which sets to solve tough organizational and contractual problems by ensuring careful participant selection, transparency and continual dialogue. According to AIA (2012), IPD represents a comprehensive process which aligns all key project participants through the entire sequence of programming, design, construction and building operations to achieve successful project outcomes.

Moreover, the performance of theConstruction Industry CI in Nigeria has consistently been a source of concern to both the public and private sector, (Okuwoga, 1998). It has been characterized by repeated delays, cost overruns, building collapses, inefficiency, low productivity, litigation e.t.c. which lead to series of questions about the construction process (Oyedele&Tham 2005). In the view of Kent and Becerik – Gerber (2010) there is a need for the evolution of  project delivery methods as IPD whichwould coordinate the various specialization in a project due to the increase in complexity of the CI which is fostered by the formation of multiple cultures by the various disciplines causing inefficiencies, high level of fragmentation and high costs of inadequate interoperability of tools.

These problems and even more can be addressed by the adoption of collaborative systems of project delivery such as the IPD.  While acknowledging the challenges of the CI and the NCI in particular, as well as highlighting the potential benefits of IPD,  implementation of any new system such as IPD for achieving productivity improvement in the Nigerian construction industry requires a careful investigation and analysis of the industry, to establish a ground for its adoption and identify the potential hitches to be encountered in order to make arrangements for a successful implementation. This research is therefore set out to fill this knowledge gap.

1.3                                              Justification for the Study

The fragmented nature of the construction industry as highlighted by Abubakar, et al. (2014) and other researchers (Ameh and Osegbo 2011, Okuwoga, 1998) wherein each discipline works independently in silos (specialization/expertise) often pursing their interest to the detriment of others within the project team, eventually to the detriment of the project has been the bane of the construction industry and a major cause of failures. Zhang and Qian (2016) opined that it is imperative to select project members who share common values, goals, trusts and effectively cooperate with one another to achieve implementation of integrated project delivery.Bryant and Colledge (2002) opined that there has been a paradigm shift towards collaboration and partnership (Integration) as models of success which emphasize more of trust – based approach to competition. The driver of this being the growth in globalization of market economies facilitated by technology.

Benefits of IPD has been acknowledged by several researchers (Becerik – Gerber &Ghasseni 2011; Cho & Ballard 2011; Hamzeh& Singleton 2011). Although it has been regarded as a relatively new approach of project delivery (Becerik – Gerber &Ghasseni 2011), it is thus necessary to investigate its adoptability within the context of the Nigerian construction industry. The benefits of IPD cannot be overemphasized due to its philosophy of “project first” approach, pulling all members of the project team as one, sharing risks and rewards, thereby greatly minimizing adversarial relationships, countless litigations and settlement, and decreasing productivity.

Adopting the concepts of IPD in the Nigerian construction industry may finally be the panacea to the ever-increasing criticism. As such findings from this study would be essential in determining which path the Nigerian construction industry intends to tread.

1.4                                                          Aim and Objectives

1.4.1       Aim

The aim of the research is to examine the adoptability of integrated project delivery concepts and principles by professionals in the NCI with the view to introducing such practices and principles in addressing some of the pertinent problems of the NCI.

1.4.2       Objectives

The objectives through which the aim would be achieved are as follows, to;

1. Articulate the concept of integrated project delivery (IPD).
2. Examine the level of awareness of the concept among practitioners in the Nigerian construction industry.

• Investigate the willingness of the NCI in adopting features of IPD.

1. Identify factors affecting the adoption of the concepts of IPD.

1.5                                              Scope and De – limitation

The study sought responsesfrom consultancy firms inNigeria, focusing on Kaduna, Kano and Abuja, the Federal capital of Nigeria on their awareness of the concept of IPD, as well as their willingness in adopting its principles while acknowledging barriers which they seemed may be hindrances to its adoption by them. Client organizations were not included in this research.

The study was de – limited by the knowledge and exposure of respondents on the concept of IPD.

100

ADOPTABILITY OF INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY (IPD) CONCEPTS IN THE NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY