The concept of integration in an IPD context: a grounded theory review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Recent construction literature has been focusing more on integrative contracting approaches such as integrated project delivery (IPD). However, conceptual studies on integration in IPD literature are scattered and fragmented, that is, most of the studies only focused on the segmented dimension of integration. A systemic understanding of the concepts of integration in IPD project-based context is still lacking. To fill this gap, this paper analyzes two aspects of integration (dimensions and directions) in IPD literature and explores their extent in construction projects. Design/methodology/approach Grounded theory review and focus group discussion approaches were employed to perform a thorough conceptual review of the literature, frame the research into the theory and increase the fundamental understanding of the concept of integration in IPD literature. Findings In this study, IPD integrating techniques were identified and their integration dimensions and directions were discussed. Results show that integration in the project-based environment of IPD is a multidimensional construct. Based on organizational, contractual and operational characteristics of IPD projects, twenty-four integration mechanisms were identified and framed into seven clusters. The integration directions over project life-cycle were demonstrated in three contexts: (1) an on-site construction project, delivered traditionally, (2) an on-site construction project, delivered with IPD and (3) an off-site construction project, delivered with IPD. Originality/value This paper gathers the segments of integration into a comprehensive overview, which can help researchers and practitioners explore elements of IPD project success more precisely. A theoretical framework of integration clusters is developed, based on IPD literature. The impact of IPD on on-site versus off-site construction is illustrated from an integration direction perspective. Finally, future areas of studies for researchers and practitioners about the concept of integration in an IPD context are discussed. This paper provides a point of departure for future theoretical and empirical explorations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it