Couple of charts for IPD vs traditional process
Hello Dear Readers,
I hope you all are doing well :) Today I decided to back up my table previous post about IPD and traditional process by presenting 2 tables and their description :) The illustrations help to visualize the information and then the information stays in our memory much longer :D Lets start!
What, How, Who and Realize
 |
Difference between traditional and IPD
processes by Autodesk whitepaper "Improving Building Industry Results
through Integrated Project Delivery and Building Information Modeling"
|
- It is very noticeable that the whole project duration in IPD is much shorter because of early buyout alias mobilization and shorter construction period.
- Lines define what and how building will be built, who is going to realize the project.
- What line: The major decisions on the design and structure are found much earlier in IPD. It is all because of early contractor participation in design of project. As a result of more thorough building design; the implementation of documents and buyout are shorter.
- Who line: In the traditional method contractors are found in buyout phase, so the planning construction and revising the drawings takes more time rather than it is planned before construction itself.
- How line: In the traditional process it shows a problem, because the decision of the way building will be built is intercept with construction period. It can lead to delays in the project as well as extra costs.
- Realize line: Realization period is shorter in IPD because of used construction knowledge from contractor in early design stages.
“MacLeamy Curve”
 |
| The “MacLeamy Curve” illustrates the concept of making design decisions earlier in the project when opportunity to influence positive outcomes is maximized and the cost of changes minimized, especially as regards the designer and design consultant roles. (The figure was taken from Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide) |
- The main accent is on two lines which represent cost of design changes and ability to impact cost and functional capabilities.
- As we can see from the diagram, the most effort is made in criteria and detailed design of IPD method, where the change of design costs less and impact on cost and functionality is high.
- In contrast traditional method takes more effort where the changes are highly priced and opportunity for cost and functionality is low.
- Therefor I can say that comparing to IPD, traditional project falls behind and the period of decision making is out of season.
Both of the charts are connected between each other. I think of it in a way that first chart plays role as a info foundation and transforms the affects of IPD into next chart. For example, the involvement of main project parties in early stages as we can see from 1st chart, reduces costs and unexpected changes as the most impact on project are in fact in conceptualization and criteria design shown in MacLeamy curve. Therefor in my opinion it will be most useful to analyze them together as one.
Well, thats it for today:) Have a good life and thanks for reading :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment