Integrated Project Delivery & Lean Construction

ARE 5.0 Project Management PjM

Track your progress as you read

Finished sections get a check mark.

1 Exam Orientation

About the ARE 5.0 Project Management Exam Study Strategies & Case Study Mastery

2 Resources and Team Capacity

Staffing Plans & Project Team Assembly Financial Multipliers & Billing Rates Staff Utilization & Chargeable Ratios Consultant Selection & Fee Budgeting

3 Work Plans and Schedules

Project Work Plan Fundamentals Critical Path Method (CPM) & Network Logic Gantt Charts & Milestone Tracking Schedule Contingencies & External Constraints

4 Fee Planning and Communication

Fee Allocation Across Project Phases Earned Value Management (EVM) for Architects Project Communications & Documentation Protocols

5 Owner–Architect Services

AIA B101 Structure & Initial Information Standard of Care, Indemnification & Liability Architect's Basic Services (Article 3) Supplemental vs. Additional Services (Article 4)

6 Consultant Agreements and Integration

AIA C401 Architect-Consultant Agreement Integrating Owner-Retained Consultants

7 Construction Agreements

A101: Price, Time, and Payment Terms AIA A201 General Conditions for Project Managers Construction Manager Contracts: CMa vs. CMc

8 Compensation, Disputes, and Termination

Dispute Resolution Mechanisms & Claims Architectural Compensation & Reimbursables Termination, Suspension & Instruments of Service

9 Delivery Structures and Document Controls

Comparative Project Delivery Methods Bridged Design-Build & Public-Private Partnerships Document Controls by Delivery Method

10 Collaborative Delivery and Procurement

Integrated Project Delivery & Lean Construction Procurement, Bidding & Negotiation

11 Budget Monitoring and Scope Changes

Cost Estimating & Designing to Budget Managing Scope Creep & Construction Changes

12 Construction Administration and Approvals

Submittals, RFIs, Payments & Project Closeout Agency Approvals and Permit Workflow

13 Quality Reviews and Compliance

Quality Assurance vs. Quality Control Peer Reviews & Code Compliance Tracking

14 Coordinated Documents and Models

Interdisciplinary Coordination & Redicheck Specifications & CSI MasterFormat Organization BIM Management & Level of Development (LOD) Clash Detection & Model Coordination

15 Risk, Design Objectives, and Learning

Project Risk Identification & Risk Register Maintaining Design Objectives Through Delivery Knowledge Management & Post-Occupancy Evaluation

Integrated Project Delivery & Lean Construction

Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI

C191 is a multi-party agreement; C195 creates a single-purpose entity.

Compensation, incentive pools, and liability allocations depend on the selected terms.

Target Value Design uses agreed value and cost objectives to evaluate design options.

PPC measures completed commitments divided by planned commitments; use variance reasons to improve future work.

Last updated: October 2026

Integrated Project Delivery and Lean Construction
Collaborative delivery and the agreement

IPD seeks to align owner, designer, constructor, and key participant decisions early. Use the project’s value, cost, schedule, and quality goals to evaluate options together. Collaboration requires actual authority, reliable information, and documented decisions; it does not ensure a particular outcome.

C191–2009 is a multi-party owner–architect–contractor agreement. C195–2008 supports a single-purpose entity approach. They are different structures. The selected agreement and related participant contracts define governance, services, compensation, insurance, reliance, and dispute resolution. Do not assume that every consultant simply becomes a C191 signatory or that the parties universally waive ordinary negligence claims.

A project may use a management group for routine decisions and an executive group for escalation. Identify who may approve a design change, spending, or milestone revision. Unanimity and voting rules follow the chosen agreement rather than the general label IPD. Record unresolved decisions and their escalation dates so collaboration does not conceal a critical-path delay.

A negotiated risk-and-reward example

Assume a hypothetical agreement sets a direct-cost target of $50 million, a separate $4 million participant profit pool, and a 40% team share of cost savings. The target excludes that separate profit pool. At a verified actual direct cost of $47 million, savings are $3 million and the team incentive is $1.2 million. If the agreement pays the original $4 million pool plus that incentive, team profit is $5.2 million. Change any of those terms and the result changes.

An overrun mechanism might reduce a defined profit pool. It does not follow that all costs are guaranteed, every participant puts all profit at risk, or the owner always bears every cost after the pool is exhausted. Read exclusions, reimbursable-cost definitions, target adjustment rules, insurance, and remedies. For a project decision, compare the whole-project consequence with the effect on individual participants and document the agreed value criteria.

Lean Construction Principles & Methodologies

IPD provides the legal and contractual vehicle; Lean Construction provides the operational operating system. Derived from the Toyota Production System, Lean Construction focuses relentlessly on eliminating waste (Muda) , maximizing client value, creating predictable continuous workflow, and fostering continuous improvement (Kaizen).

The Seven Types of Waste in Architectural Design and Construction

Overproduction: Generating drawings, details, or reports before they are needed or beyond the level of detail required for construction.

Waiting: Trades waiting for RFIs, submittal approvals, material deliveries, or preceding trade handoffs.

Transportation: Inefficient movement of materials, tools, or physical documents across site or office.

Over-processing: Conducting redundant clash reviews or multiple redesign cycles due to uncoordinated initial assumptions.

Inventory: Storing excess building materials on site, creating congestion and risk of damage.

Motion: Unnecessary physical movement of workers searching for tools, drawings, or access points.

Defects / Rework: Detailing errors, fabrication blunders, or field installations that must be torn out and reinstalled.

Target Value Design (TVD)

Traditional design workflows follow an inefficient cyclical loop: Design Concept ⟶ Periodic Cost Estimate ⟶ Budget Overrun ⟶ Value Engineering (Scope Cuts) ⟶ Redesign \text{Design Concept} \longrightarrow \text{Periodic Cost Estimate} \longrightarrow \text{Budget Overrun} \longrightarrow \text{Value Engineering (Scope Cuts)} \longrightarrow \text{Redesign} Design Concept ⟶ Periodic Cost Estimate ⟶ Budget Overrun ⟶ Value Engineering (Scope Cuts) ⟶ Redesign

Traditional "Value Engineering" (VE) is often destructive—occurring late in the process, stripping away architectural features, and forcing uncoordinated last-minute material substitutions.

Target Value Design (TVD) inverts this paradigm: Allowable Cost (Business Case) ⟶ Target Cost Set ⟶ Design Directly TO the Target Cost \text{Allowable Cost (Business Case)} \longrightarrow \text{Target Cost Set} \longrightarrow \text{Design Directly TO the Target Cost} Allowable Cost (Business Case) ⟶ Target Cost Set ⟶ Design Directly TO the Target Cost

Designing to the Budget: The budget is a fixed design parameter, not an outcome of design. The interdisciplinary team establishes modular cost targets for each building cluster (e.g., core and shell, interior fit-out, MEP systems, facade).

Continuous Estimating: General contractors and trade fabricators sit alongside architects in the design room, pricing design variations in real time. If an architect proposes an articulated glass curtain wall, the glazing contractor immediately provides cost feedback, allowing the architect to refine the mullion spacing before drawings are locked in.

The Last Planner System (LPS) and Pull Planning

The Last Planner System (LPS) is a proprietary Lean production planning methodology designed to produce predictable workflow and accountability. The "last planners" are the individuals directly responsible for supervising the actual execution of work—trade foremen, field superintendents, and lead architectural project managers. [ 1. MASTER SCHEDULE ] (Should Do: Milestones & Long-Lead Commitments)

│
▼
[ 2. PHASE PULL PLANNING ] (Should Do: Work Backward from Milestones using Post-It Tasks)
│
▼
[ 3. 6-WEEK MAKE-READY LOOK-AHEAD ] (Can Do: Identify & Clear Constraints on Tasks)
│
▼
[ 4. WEEKLY WORK PLAN (WWP) ] (Will Do: Commitments Made by Foremen)
│
▼
[ 5. DID & LEARN: PPC METRIC ] (Percent Plan Complete & Root Cause Analysis)
1. Phase Pull Planning

Unlike traditional push schedules where a project manager dictates dates from a CPM software Gantt chart, Pull Planning works backward from a defined completion milestone .

Each trade writes their required tasks on color-coded adhesive notes.

A downstream trade places their task milestone (e.g., "Pour Concrete Slab Floor 3"). The upstream trade then identifies what prerequisite work must be completed before they can start (e.g., "Install Decking," "Lay Rebar," "Place MEP Sleeves").

Activities are "pulled" into the schedule only when downstream capacity and prerequisite work dictate, avoiding trade stacking and site congestion.

2. The 6-Week Make-Ready Look-Ahead Schedule

In this example, use a six-week make-ready window; select the actual horizon according to procurement and work dependencies. The integrated team reviews each task to identify and remove all constraints :

Are the shop drawings and submittals approved?

Have RFIs been answered by the architect?

Has the material shipped and arrived at the staging yard?

Is site access clear and safe?

If a constraint cannot be removed, the activity is not allowed to enter the Weekly Work Plan . Starting unready work is considered a cardinal violation in Lean construction.

3. Percent Plan Complete (PPC) and Continuous Learning

Every week, the team reviews the Weekly Work Plan (WWP) to verify which committed tasks were completed 100% as promised. The primary performance metric is Percent Plan Complete (PPC) : PPC = ( Number of Committed Activities Completed 100% on Time Total Number of Committed Activities in Weekly Work Plan ) × 100 % \text{PPC} = \left( \frac{\text{Number of Committed Activities Completed 100\% on Time}}{\text{Total Number of Committed Activities in Weekly Work Plan}} \right) \times 100\% PPC = ( Total Number of Committed Activities in Weekly Work Plan Number of Committed Activities Completed 100% on Time ) × 100%

Note

The Binary Rule of PPC: In Lean construction, there is no credit for 90% completion. A task is either 100% finished or it is recorded as non-complete. If a task fails, the team does not assess blame; instead, they conduct a 5-Whys Root Cause Analysis to understand why the variance occurred (e.g., weather, missing detail, late delivery) and prevent systemic recurrence.

The "Big Room" Environment

The physical embodiment of IPD and Lean is the Big Room —a dedicated, co-located project office where the Owner, Architect, Consulting Engineers, Construction Manager, and Major Trade Subcontractors work shoulder-to-shoulder throughout the project lifespan.

Real-Time Coordination: Instead of leaving a coordination issue unresolved while awaiting a response, a mechanical contractor can spin around in their chair and resolve a duct conflict directly with the structural engineer and architect in five minutes.

Continuous Multi-Trade BIM: The integrated team works in a single, federated 3D Building Information Model, conducting daily clash detection and ensuring that fabrication-level shop models (LOD 400) align seamlessly before a single piece of steel is cut.

Reference: AIA C191 and C195 distinctions .

Reference: Lean Construction Institute: Last Planner System .