In response to growing environmental concerns in the construction industry, we investigated how Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Building Information Modeling (BIM) jointly support the implementation of sustainable construction practices. Using a comparative case study approach, we examined two high-performance projects: Kendeda Building (Living Building Challenge-certified) and Science Square (LEED-certified) to assess how general contractors integrate IPD and BIM in decision-making related to energy use, material optimization, life-cycle assessment, and project coordination. Qualitative data were collected through site visits, observations, and interviews with contractors, while quantitative performance metrics, including cost, schedule, and energy efficiency, were analyzed using a cross-case matrix. Our results showed that IPD–BIM workflows consistently outperformed traditional delivery models, with the studied projects using 55–75% less operational energy, completing 12% faster, and finishing approximately 6% under budget while reducing punch-list items by 25%. These outcomes stem from early-stage collaboration, model-based coordination, and shared accountability embedded in the IPD–BIM process. Here, we present a novel decision-making framework and performance matrix that highlights the tangible benefits and remaining barriers to broader IPD adoption, particularly the need for early trust-building and multiparty contract structures. The findings offer actionable insights for industry professionals seeking to advance sustainable construction through integrated, technology-driven methods.
Citation: Divisha Singh, Omobolanle Ogunseiju, Ebenezer Fanijo. A sustainable future: Leveraging IPD and BIM for green construction success[J]. Clean Technologies and Recycling, 2025, 5(2): 143-160. doi: 10.3934/ctr.2025008
In response to growing environmental concerns in the construction industry, we investigated how Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Building Information Modeling (BIM) jointly support the implementation of sustainable construction practices. Using a comparative case study approach, we examined two high-performance projects: Kendeda Building (Living Building Challenge-certified) and Science Square (LEED-certified) to assess how general contractors integrate IPD and BIM in decision-making related to energy use, material optimization, life-cycle assessment, and project coordination. Qualitative data were collected through site visits, observations, and interviews with contractors, while quantitative performance metrics, including cost, schedule, and energy efficiency, were analyzed using a cross-case matrix. Our results showed that IPD–BIM workflows consistently outperformed traditional delivery models, with the studied projects using 55–75% less operational energy, completing 12% faster, and finishing approximately 6% under budget while reducing punch-list items by 25%. These outcomes stem from early-stage collaboration, model-based coordination, and shared accountability embedded in the IPD–BIM process. Here, we present a novel decision-making framework and performance matrix that highlights the tangible benefits and remaining barriers to broader IPD adoption, particularly the need for early trust-building and multiparty contract structures. The findings offer actionable insights for industry professionals seeking to advance sustainable construction through integrated, technology-driven methods.
| [1] | Adel G, Othman AAE, Harinarain N (2023) Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): An Innovative Approach for Achieving Sustainability in Construction Projects. In: Construction in 5D: Deconstruction, Digitalization, Disruption, Disaster, Development: Proceedings of the 15th Built Environment Conference. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97748-1_16 |
| [2] |
Rashidian S, Drogemuller R, Omrani S (2024) An integrated building information modelling, integrated project delivery and lean construction maturity model. Arch Eng Design Manag 20: 1454–1470. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2024.2383718 doi: 10.1080/17452007.2024.2383718
|
| [3] |
Azhar S, Carlton WA, Olsen D, et al. (2011) Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis. Autom Construct 20: 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.019 doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.019
|
| [4] | Barnes S, Castro-Lacouture D (2009) BIM-enabled integrated optimization tool for LEED decisions. In: Computing in Civil Engineering, 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1061/41052(346)26 |
| [5] |
Bynum P, Issa RR, Olbina S (2013) Building information modeling in support of sustainable design and construction. J Construct Eng Manag 139: 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000560 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000560
|
| [6] | Hardin B, McCool D (2015) BIM and construction management: proven tools, methods, and workflows. John Wiley & Sons. Indianapolis, Indiana. |
| [7] | Harvey B, Stephen J, Michele R (2010) Green BIM—How building information modeling is contributing to green design and construction. J Inform Technol Civil Eng Arch 7: 20–36. |
| [8] |
Liang R, Ma H, Wang P, et al. (2024) The applications of Building Information Modeling in the life-cycle of green buildings: A comprehensive review. Sci Technol Built Environ 30: 932–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2024.2351310 doi: 10.1080/23744731.2024.2351310
|
| [9] | Hanks NM (2015) Investigation into the effects of project delivery methods on LEED targets. In: Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects, Spring 5-22-2015. USF Scholarship: A digital repository Gleeson Library, Geschke Center. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone |
| [10] |
Karasu T, Aaltonen K, Haapasalo H (2023) The interplay of IPD and BIM: A systematic literature review. Construct Innov 23: 640–664. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-07-2021-0134 doi: 10.1108/CI-07-2021-0134
|
| [11] | Nguyen L (2022) Digital optimisation workflow in early project phases and what it can bring when looking at the MacLeamy curve. In: AGS Victorian Symposium" Digital Geotechnics", Melbourne, Australia. |
| [12] | Cheshire D (2024) Regenerative by Design: Creating living buildings and cities. Routledge. |
| [13] |
Hamzeh F, Rached F, Hraoui Y, et al. (2019) Integrated project delivery as an enabler for collaboration: A Middle East perspective. Built Environ Project Asset Manag 9: 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-05-2018-0084 doi: 10.1108/BEPAM-05-2018-0084
|
| [14] |
Rashidian S, Drogemuller R, Omrani S (2024) An integrated building information modelling, integrated project delivery and lean construction maturity model. Arch Eng Design Manag 20: 1454–1470. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2024.2383718 doi: 10.1080/17452007.2024.2383718
|
| [15] |
Meng G, Hu H, Chen L (2024) The application obstacles of BIM technology in green building project and its key role path analysis. Sci Rep 14: 30330. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81360-8 doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-81360-8
|
| [16] |
Liu Z, Wang Q, Gan VJ, et al. (2020) Envelope thermal performance analysis based on building information model (BIM) cloud platform—Proposed green mark collaboration environment. Energies13: 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13030586 doi: 10.3390/en13030586
|
| [17] |
Watfa MK, Hawash AE, Jaafar K (2021) Using building information & energy modelling for energy efficient designs. J Inform Technol Construct 26: 427–440. https://doi.org/10.36680/j.itcon.2021.023 doi: 10.36680/j.itcon.2021.023
|
| [18] | Wu W, Issa RR (2012) Leveraging cloud-BIM for LEED automation. J Inform Technol Construct (ITcon) 17: 367–384. |
| [19] |
Marzouk M, Ayman R, Alwan Z, Elshaboury N (2022) Green building system integration into project delivery utilizing BIM. Environ Dev Sustain 24: 6467–6480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01712-6 doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01712-6
|
| [20] |
Zhou CC, Yin GF, Hu XB (2009) Multi-objective optimization of material selection for sustainable products: Artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach. Mater Design 30: 1209–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.06.006 doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2008.06.006
|
| [21] | Saporta M (2021) Georgia Tech's Kendeda Building certified as a Living Building. SaportaReport. https://saportareport.com/georgia-techs-kendeda-building-certified-as-a-living-building/sections/reports/maria_saporta/ |
| [22] | Georgia Institute of Technology (2023) The Kendeda Building for Innovative Sustainable Design: Brochure 2023. https://livingbuilding.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/2023-07/KBISD_Brochure%20%282023%29.pdf |
| [23] | Miller Hull Partnership (2021) The Kendeda Building at Georgia Tech earns Living Building Certification. https://millerhull.com/2021/the-kendeda-building-at-georgia-tech-earns-living-building-certification/ |
| [24] | Perkins & Will (2024). Science Square. Perkins & Will. https://perkinswill.com/project/science-square/ |
| [25] | Trammell Crow Company (2024) TCC and partners announce completion of Science Square Phase 1 in Atlanta[Press release]. Trammell Crow Company. https://www.trammellcrow.com |
| [26] | Nguyen TD, Pishdad P, Fanijo EO (2024) A comparative analysis of LEED and green globes: A case study approach to environmental performance assessment of an educational campus facility. In: Teoksessa: 32nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC). Auckland, New Zealand, 954–968. https://doi.org/10.24928/2024/0129 |
Figures(8) / Tables(3)
Divisha Singh, Omobolanle Ogunseiju, Ebenezer Fanijo. A sustainable future: Leveraging IPD and BIM for green construction success[J]. Clean Technologies and Recycling, 2025, 5(2): 143-160. doi: 10.3934/ctr.2025008
DownLoad: