CHICAGO – The 2010 Integrated Project Delivery eConference, hosted by Stagnito Media and Structural Engineering & Design magazine, was held Thursday, April 22, 2010. The purpose of the webinar was to discuss and hear from experts about IPD and how new technology, process improvement, and cultural change are helping to facilitate an environment where owners, architects, engineers, and contractors can collaborate more effectively earlier in the design and production process. The 601 registered attendees learned how IPD is paving the way for better, faster, and less-costly building projects, streamlined information and material supply chains, and more efficient processes throughout the building design and construction industry.

In addition to a virtual exhibit hall open at all times and other independent chats, participants were able to speak with several key leaders in the industry on live chat boards. Newforma CEO Ian Howell answered questions from users about how Newforma works and how their firms can benefit from the technology. Many users were interested to learn if Newforma can manage both SharePoint data and server data. “Yes, Newforma’s search capability includes SharePoint, wikis, and project websites,” Howell said. “It keeps all of your data where it is today – no moving files into a vault or out to an extranet workspace.”

Howell also explained to participants how Newforma can assist on multi-company projects. “You can choose to set up a project domain (if the project is large enough) using Newforma,” Howell said. “Or, your firm can deploy Newforma and the other companies can ‘see’ selected project information that you publish through a browser.”

Next, Will Ikerd, P.E., founder and director of the Department of Integrated Project Delivery at Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., led a live discussion on “The Challenges of Transitioning Your Staff to an IPD Mindset.” Users in this discussion asked Ikerd who in a firm really needs to be the driver for IPD: the owner, someone on the project team, the architect, or someone else. “I think anyone can promote it, but the owner is key,” Ikerd said. “It is the owner who has everyone’s ear.”

Participants were also concerned about getting all of their staff members on board with IPD adoption. Several engineers and project managers recommended initiating an “open book” policy with the staff to encourage acceptance and participation from everyone, or possibly to enlist a third party to help with this transition.

The following webcast covered three areas of interest: “Integrated Project Delivery: Six Case Studies,” led by Jonathan Cohen, FAIA, LEEP AP, principal at Jonathan Cohen and Associates; “Exploring the Legal Implications of Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery,” led by Jay Wickersham, FAIA, Esq., of Noble & Wickersham LLP; and “Exploring the Outlook and Best Markets for Integrated Project Delivery,” led by Jerry Guerra, principal at The JAGG Group.
Cohen dicussed the goals of IPD, which include providing early access to information that lowers risk for participants, improving information exchange and sharing expertise, creation of a virtual enterprise around the project, and easing the attainment of sustainability/operational goals. Cohen then went through six case studies where IPD has been successfully used, including on the construction of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. Download the full report at http://aia.org/ipdcasestudies.

Wickersham, an architect and lawyer, focused on the legal issues involved with the use of BIM, IPD, and what he called “IPD Lite” — the practice of using IPD on parts of a project only. “It is essential to think through the issues that arise from BIM and IPD Lite before moving forward with full IPD,” Wickersham said. He also discussed the difference between many of the AIA contracts and Consensus Docs.

Guerra recently finished the publication titled PSMJ’s AEC Issue Brief: Integrated Project Delivery. He added to the definitions of IPD that Cohen and Wickersham started earlier. “The definition of IPD is still developing…one of the things that I think is adding to confusion in the industry is these varying definitions.” Guerra discussed the differences between contractual and conceptual IPD use, and explained how only two percent of respondents to an earlier PSMJ webinar responded that their firm has participated in a contractual IPD project, but 32 percent said their firm has participated in a conceptual project; 11 percent had done both.

View the IPD Webcast at GoStructural.com/webcasts now!