Researchers conducting the broadest survey to date of multiparty integrated-project-delivery experiences say they did not expect such overwhelmingly positive responses. Most IPD veterans answered in strong support of the risk- and reward-sharing model in areas including project performance, expectations met and repeat use.

"We were surprised by how positive the results were," says Renee Cheng, a professor in the architecture school of the University of Minnesota and co-author of the report, "IPD: Performance, Expectations and Future Use."

When comparing overall IPD project performance to non-IPD projects, 60% of the respondents said IPD teams performed "significantly better," and more than 80% said IPD performance was "better" than non-IPD. "The large majority of responders say the project performed significantly better on budget and schedule," says Markku Allison, founder of IPD and lean-construction consulting firm Scan Consulting and co-author of the $20,000 report, executed by the University of Minnesota and sponsored by the Integrated Project Delivery Alliance (IPDA). Some 90% said overall value was better, and more than half of those said it was significantly better.

Respondents, including owners, architects, contractors and other team members, compared performance in areas such as schedule predictability, cost and budget control, quality of building outcome, quantity of changes, handling of changes, morale of the stakeholders and overall value delivered.

"We thought those more experienced with IPD would have different responses than the newcomers," says Cheng. That was not the case, she adds. Answers were uniformly positive and not related to background, stakeholder type, experience,  geography or project type or scope.

However, some respondents reported dissatisfaction with IPD. About 10% said the overall value delivered was worse or significantly worse. "A positive outcome was that we got negative responses,"  says Allison.

Those less-than-satisfied responders said IPD challenges include the unwillingness of some team members to let go of traditional roles; disruption of the whole team due to the poor performance of any single stakeholder; mid-project changes in personnel; and team members that do not grasp what it takes to succeed in an IPD world.

Challenges aside, about 90% said they were likely or significantly likely to use IPD again on a project of similar type and scope. About 95% said they would want to use IPD on other projects and would recommend it as a delivery method.

"Given the successes, one would think IPD would take off," says Cheng. "Perhaps it is because there is no guarantee of good results." Slow adoption is related to a dearth of proven track records and a perception that IPD is "challenging, risky and untested," says Allison.

The study canvassed 108 IPD veterans of 59 projects. Data was collected from July 9 to Sept. 15. Cheng and Allison think the survey represents the largest single body of data gathered on IPD projects.

"We were trying to get a large number of responses, so we gathered a relatively small data set across a broad range of projects," says Allison. The survey did not ask about liability waivers, he adds.

To increase the number of responses, the survey will remain open until Sept. 15, 2016. The web link is: bit.ly/1R7q0lJ. The entire survey, both quantitative and qualitative input, takes four to six minutes to complete, says Allison. The current report is available for free download at www.ipda.ca/evidence.

The authors are in the process of  selecting up to 15 of the report's 59 projects for more in-depth analysis. That research report is expected by next fall. "It will be a deep dive," says Allison.

Edmonton, Alberta-based IPDA was formed early this year to promote IPD, including providing data to the industry. Most of the 24 firm members are Canadian.

"We need to advocate, educate and  really mentor," says Jen Hancock, director of innovative construction for IPDA's founding member, Chandos Construction, Edmonton, and IPDA's acting chair.