The latest operational, contractual and organizational trends in IPD literature: review and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Integrated project delivery (IPD) has attracted considerable attention in recent years, however only a few review studies captured the dynamic and evolving nature of this topic. The purpose of this study is to review the most recent IPD publications, in order to shed light on future research. Design/methodology/approach Using a systematic review methodology, the study aims to synthesize the current IPD literature, and frame the latest research and development in this domain. A systematic review is conducted to identify the current state-of-the-art of IPD research and the latest research themes and trends in this domain. A bibliometric analysis is performed to explain characteristics of screened articles, and through a thematic analysis the latest themes and trends are recognized. Findings In this study, based on IPD characteristics (contractual-regulative, operational-cognitive and organizational-structural), research themes (legal, commercial, technological, procedural, cultural and structural), sub-themes and their associated trends are identified. The latest emerging trends are mostly related to the contractual characteristics of IPD, and are focused on the combination of IPD with new business models and developing contractual guidelines for promoting IPD applications in off-site and on-site construction projects. Originality/value This research contributes to the body of knowledge by synthesizing the state of the art of IPD in construction literature and exposing the latest research trends in this area. A theoretical framework of integration in an IPD context is developed, based on the literature. Finally, future areas of studies are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".