![]() |
|
![]()
|
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2019, 9(1), 2-11
Project Management
Received July 8, 2018; revised August 31, 2018; September 8, 2018; accepted September 8, 2018
Available online October 19, 2018
Abstract: The right selection of implementation system for projects in the construction industry is critical to achieve success. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), is a comprehensive implementation system which has in recent years been seen to play an effective role in projects improved efficiency. Implementing an IPD system to resolve various problems of traditional systems is very important; however there are several barriers to its implementation. In addition, rooting and classifying the barriers is very significant in being able to resolve them. The aim of this study is the identification of barriers to IPD basically extracted from existing case studies. In this research, the meta-synthesis qualitative method is used for identifying and classifying the IPD barriers. The results are presented in a comprehensive table, and then are illustrated as a pattern by using macro concepts. This pattern is useful for presenting barriers to IPD. Identifying the barriers and resolving them are as important as identifying the benefits of IPD in creating motivation for construction industry owners. They also serve to provide the context for required predictions in implementing this approach in the construction industry.
Keywords: Integrated project delivery, barriers, project key stakeholders, meta-synthesis, construction, modification of contracts, IPD. Copyright © Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management (EPPM-Journal). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported License. Requests for reprints and permissions at eppm.journal@gmail.com. Citation: Kahvandi, Z., Saghatforoush, E., Mahoud, M., and Preece, C. (2019). Analysis of the Barriers to the Implementation of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): A Meta-Synthesis Approach. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 9(1), 2-11.
Full text
|