Talk:Integrated project delivery

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The External Links and articles have been included to show notability - do not delete them, thanks

IPD Inc. (company) versus the broadly used term "integrated project delivery"

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am by no means an "expert" on IPD or BIM, but as a practicing architect I have some familiarity with these topics, and this article makes no sense in the context of contemporary (2010) arch/eng/construction practice. I looked up the article because I would like to know more about IPD, but I know enough already to find this article somewhat bizarre and mostly useless.

IPD (the "practice" not the company) is an important topic, and should have a distinct Wikipedia page, but the article that exists at this moment is pretty much useless for anyone trying to learn about or understand what the term "integrated project delivery" means in real-world use. What IS currently in the article is lousy (like the "corporate speak" opening sentence, the endless unexplained jargon or the apparently proprietary, company-specific material) and all the important information about IPD is either not explained or missing.

The article needs to explain precisely how IPD differs from "Design-Bid-Build" or "Design-Build."
It needs to explain the legal issues that arise from this novel contractual approach.
It needs to explain the role that BIM software plays in this approach, and how IPD can differ radically from the traditional approach to delivering paper "Contract Documents."

If you get a bunch of Architects, Engineers, Contractors and Lawyers who deal with construction together and ask them "what do you think about IPD?" none of them are going to mention this specific company, or most of what's in this article. You can read the whole rant below, but essentially, IPD is an important topic for the A/E/C industry, but this article has little to do with the "real world" discussions that are going on. It strikes me as being much more rooted in this "IPD Inc." company, which I've never heard of before now, because it has never been mentioned in any discussion I've heard, or any book/article I've read. This firm may claim a trademark on the term, but it's used all over the web and in print without a "TM" following it or any reference to this "IPD Inc." company. Perhaps they should be mentioned in the article, but they certainly don't "drive" or "define" what IPD is in the real world. (Remember, the Wright Brothers tried to patent the entire idea of the airplane, but that "IP maximalist" approach "crashed and burned" in the global marketplace.)

One example of the "weirdness" of this article is right at the top:

   There are eight main sequential phases to the Integrated Project Delivery method:[3]
   * Conceptualization phase [Expanded Programming]
   * Criteria design phase [Expanded Schematic Design]
   * Detailed Design phase [Expanded Design Development]"
   * ...

Huh? I've never been part of a discussion of IPD or read an article/book addressing IPD that made these very granular distinctions about the early phases of design development. This smacks of some company-specific or proprietary approach, which is not relevant to the broad discussion of IPD in the Arch/Eng/Construction world. In some projects, these early phases may be rolled into one or two phases, but these distinctions don't seem to be relevant in the slightest to the overall issue of "integrated project delivery."

One main aspect of "real world IPD" that everyone actually discusses is the move away from the traditional approach of paper Contract Documents to basing the construction contract of a bunch of digital files. Most of the discussion about IPD addresses the issue of how information is shared and packaged between the Design team, the Owner and the Contractor. This article really doesn't focus on that main issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdarch (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

What are the competing definitions?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article starts out by saying that there are competing definitions of IPD, but it gives us only one. It should give all significant competitors, or it should drop the reference to competing definitions. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Integrated project delivery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic