Implementing an Integrated Project Delivery approach for ... Panel 4-Gomez.pdf · Implementing an...

© LEAN CONSTRUCTION INSTITUTE

C A P T U R E A N D L E V E R A G E T H E L E A N A D V A N T A G E

Implementing an Integrated Project Delivery approach for infrastructure projects during the

early planning phase – A Peruvian case

Oct, 2017

Sulyn Gomez – Purdue University

Paulo Barriga – Graña y Montero

Nader Naderpajouh – RMIT University




Infrastructure Projects



Background Infrastructure

3

Transportation 36%

Energy19%

Telecommunications 17%

Healthcare12%

Water and sewage 8%

Hydroelectric 5%

Education 3%

Source: AFIN (2015). "A plan to get out of poverty: National Infrastructure Plan 2016-2025"

Infrastructure Gap

$ 160,000 MM

Peru:+ 30 million people

+ 25% Do not have access to drinkable water+ $58 000 million investment needed in Transportation

This research aims to investigate the implementation of an

integrated project delivery (IPD) approach for a

Peruvian infrastructure project with operation and

maintenance as part of the scope.



Background Infrastructure

5

Major Issues

Management system not suitable for integration

Absence of planning and evaluation of the feasibility of execution (Engineering –Construction – O&M).

Need procedures that look for integration

Lack of alignment mechanisms.

We need to

integrate



Team: Traditional Approach

6

WHAT

Pre-design Schematic Design Detailed design Working drawing Winning Construction Close

Public agencies

Client

Other designers / consultants

General Contractor

Other SC

Designer

HOW

WHO

BUILD

TR

AD

ITIO

NA

L

PPP Bid



Graña y Montero Group

7

GoalGet additional business opportunities for the companies of our group Stability

Combine knowledge to perform any work delivering the greatest value to the client.



Team Alignment: IPD Approach

8

WHAT

Conceptualization Criteria Detailed Design Documentation Early Planning Construction Start-up

Public Agencies (Government)

GyM Infrastructure (Developer)

Other consultants

GyM (General Contractor)

Other SC

GMI (Designer)

HOW

WHO

BUILD

LEA

N

GyM – FERROVIAS (O&M Contractor)

Operation

PPP Bid

LCI 2017

Economic growth Complex projects Need to change how we do things



Service Level

9

Develop of a competitive solution

(Competence factor) that meets service levels

Develop the

budget based on a

defined solution

Value

Engineering

Incidence

Price

Incidence

Public Project: PPP

Classical Public Project

Integrated Approach

(IPD)

COMPETENCY

FACTOR

FC = X% Investment Value +

Y% Operation Value



Study Objectives

10

Identify current Lean, BIM, and IPD level of implementation

Analyze perception of participants regarding IPD practices

Propose further improvements based on best practices



Study Participants

11

Project Manager14

Designer1

Construction Manager2

Technical Manager1

Field Engineer2

Technical Office Engineer3

Human Resources1

• Period:3 months (May –Jul)

• Participants:Professionals infrastructure division

• Total number of participants:30

Answered: 26Skipped: 04

Case Study:Rail Line Expansion



Current State



Current State

13

~ 60% of participants are not familiar with IPD concept or just

know a little bit about it

Training plays a crucial role on the implementation of IPD through all the

divisions93.3%

6.7%

LEAN

Yes A little No

73.3%

20.0%

6.7%

BIM

Yes A little No

40.0%

26.7%

33.3%

IPD

Yes A little No

Línea 1 – Metro

de Lima

First infrastructure project

with an IPD approach

Budget: US$ 123,564,043.00

Schedule: 28/07/2016 - 06/12/2018

1. Electric system improvement

2. Train stations expansion

3. Garage units expansion

4. Second Access to the train stations



Current State

15

Case study: Unique in its kind in Peru

Complexity can:

- Challenge (encourage or discourage)

- Motivate0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

(1)Low complexity

(2) (3) (4) (5)High complexity

Level of Complexity



To Improve

16

Teams need to improve:

“We’re still doing PUSH”Start designing our production

system

Cost Risk management

Accountability & Trust Real commitments

Communication Efficient (Quality, quantity, time)0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Unrealistic schedulecommitments

Unrealistic costcommitments

Lack of communicationbetween team

members

Lack of on-timeinformation

Others

Major reason for not accomplishing goals



Team Perception



Participants Perception

18

0

1

2

3

4

5

We share risk & rewardIt is a different way of

doing things

It helps to improvecommunication

It helps to create trust

I can make big changes

No one is more importantthan others

My job benefits the teamTeam shows

consideration with newmembers

We work better as a team

I am an essential part ofthe team

I can speak up aboutanything

We do better things bysharing ideas

I am part of the decision-making process

The team wants to hearmy voice

I feel empoweredIPD as a delivery method:

Adds valueWhy are we not using it?

Team work:CollaborationHigh morale

Decision making:Ideas/information

sharingEmpowerment



Team Alignment

19

Not only COST driven

We’re still not choosing Technical proposal Cost consequences due

risk impact

$9 million under risk needs creative people

Designers GeneralContractor

MEP Contractor StructuralContractor

O&M

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Factors to Choose Key Partners

Cost

Technical Proposal

Design

Expertise

CBA for choosing advantages of working with each partner



Implementation of IPD Principles



Target Cost

22

PROFIT

OH

RISK

INDUSTRIAL

COST

(Direct Cost)

Target Cost

TARGET COST PROPOSAL

COST 101,874,087

Direct Cost 83,683,123

Engineering 2,840,958

Indirect Cost 14,094,116

Insurance, WC 1,255,890

RISK A% TC 9,434,873

Overhead OP B% TC 6,114,059

PROFIT C% TC 6,114,059

TOTAL COST: 123,537,078

TARGET COST: 117,423,019

Pain/Gain

Sharing



Shared Governance

23

Shared Governance

MGI Leaders

Project Team Leaders

General

ContractorDesigner Infrastructure Services

MGI Leader

Construction

MGI Leader

Engineering

MGI Leader

Business

Model

MGI Leader

O&M

Team Leader

Construction

Team Leader

Engineering

Team Leader

Business

Model

Team

Leader O&M

Operations

CEO

Integrated Management Team Leaders+Project Team Leaders

Decisions are made in

consensus

Core Group:Integrated

Management Committee

(IMC)



Shared Governance

24

COMPETENCY

FACTOR

Key: It can not

affect current

operation

Conceptualization

First estimation

Contractual analysis

Alternatives

Best solution identification

ENGINEERING

Critical variable identification

Strategies to win

Contract management and risks

Integrated decision-making

process

Financial analysis

BUSINESS MODEL

Constructability


Best estimation

CONSTRUCTION

Conceptualization


Optimization

Best estimation

Operational Security

OPERATION

Iteration of decisions



Co-Location or Big Room

25

More people are getting involved in

early phases

Design Early Planning Before 50% Const After 50% Const O&M

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Co-Location

Owner

Designer

General Contractor

MEP Contractor

Structural Contractor

Finishing Contractor

O&M Contractor



Decision-Making Process

26

More people involved in decision-making

Scope Cost Schedule Change Orders Interferences

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Parties Involvement in Decision-Making Process

End Users

Client

Designers

General Contractor

MEP Contractor

Structural Contractor

Finishing Contractor

O&M



Essential Principles for Integration

27

Lean requires:

Respect

Survival is more important than

working conditions15.38%

23.08%

23.08%

38.46%

38.46%

53.85%

69.23%

69.23%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00%

Respect

Clear Procedures

Continuous Improvement

Technology

Leadership

Objectives Understanding

Mutual Benefit

Communication

Essential Principles



LCI CONGRESS PRESENTATION STYLE GUIDEWhat comes next?

Mindset

Ownership



Conclusions

29

Current State

Survival culture

Early involvement of different parties

Target Value: Iterative process, stimulate creativity

IPD Principles

Develop a culture

Strengthen use of tools such as: A3, CBA…

Focus on delivering greater value: Life-cycle

Further Improvements

Change of mindset:

Respect for people

Multidisciplinary team working together through all

phases of the project

Work on commercial strategies to sustain IPD:

Risk&Reward management



In the spirit of continuous improvement, we would like to remind you to complete this session’s survey in the Congress app! We look forward to receiving your feedback.

Thanks for making it possible:

Glenn BallardSantiago RuizAlonso Medina

Sulyn Gomez:E-mail: [email protected]: +1 765 775 6583

mailto:[email protected]



Case-Study Project

32

Goal:Getting final users

feedback & Delivering greater value

Focus should be greater in Design phase

10% Didn’t use feedback

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Conceptualization Design Programming /Planning

Construction O&M Didn't usefeedback

Final users feedback

Implementing an Integrated Project Delivery approach for ... Panel 4-Gomez.pdf · Implementing an...

Documents

Transcript of Implementing an Integrated Project Delivery approach for ... Panel 4-Gomez.pdf · Implementing an...