MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964654665 · doi:10.14288/1.0378439

Identifying the key innovative and collaborative strategies of integrated project delivery method to achieve owner goals in housing projects

2019· article· en· W2964654665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Divyarajsinh Chudasma

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Integrated project deliveryProcess managementBusinessEngineering managementComputer scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringProject managementComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fragmented nature of tradition project delivery in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industry causes many inefficiencies and results in missed project goals and expectations. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is new procurement method that has a potential to address these inefficiencies by overcoming traditional fragmentation and fostering collaboration through new contractual arrangements. As IPD is an emerging construction delivery method that is highly driven by the owner’s initiative, vision, and continuous involvement, there are very few IPD projects that focus on large-scale residential or multi-unit housing projects. This led to a finding that IPD implementation is not very common in housing projects and related case-studies are not widely available in Canada. In addition, there is a lack of information about key characteristics of IPD that facilitates success of the project. The focus of this research is to address a current research gap by developing and analyzing housing project case studies that implemented IPD principles or adopted formal IPD approaches. The overall objective of the research is to assess the implementation of key IPD principles on the housing projects and to identify the key innovative and collaborative strategies of IPD through case study analysis. To analyze IPD/IPD-like projects and to develop detailed case studies, a case study framework was developed for this study. The thesis documents four IPD/IPD-like Canadian housing projects, namely priMED Mosaic Centre, St. Jerome’s University Student Residence and Academic Centre, UBC Brock Commons, and Jacobson Hall at Trinity Western University. The case study for each project has been documented using the developed framework. The project case studies document project context, organizational setup, processes, technology implemented, and project outcomes in detailed. This research summarizes key features and lesson learned from the four case studies through cross-project analysis. The identified IPD-like innovative and collaborative strategies in this research can be considered for implementation in future housing projects to obtain better outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207