Read somewhere today that IPD was instituted to replace Design-Build; I read another blog that stated that with BIM/IPD the Architect could return to being the "Master Builder"

Still another blog suggests that the GC should be the one to take charge. What is very interesting to me is the world of engineers seems to be strangely (at least from my limited scope) about the whole thing; especially since the "I's" in BIM/IPD are greatly driven by their input in design. Ultimately I don't care who wins the fight, or who retains the title as the Prime or take over as Prime because ultimately the take is going to pretty much stay the same. What would be REALLY Tony the Tiger is if we'd just "DO the DANG THANG" that is to say actually commits to BIM/IPD; that way everybody benefits. Or; we could keep jockeying for position until everyone loses why the projects get outsourced to India and China or some European companies. Oh and trust me it's already happening in case you don't know it already.
I've coordinated work that was being done in China reviewed contracts from India and just finished up a stateside process job with two European companies. Why because the company's who I contracted with are not ready to use the BIM authored tools just yet but they are working on it and sadly some are not even doing 3D. My question to them was "how do you not do 3D in this day and age on a multimillion dollar Process job where a length of conveying line can run you 60k for a ten footer?" Ok so one of the BIM authored software is Revit which has become part of "The Great Debate" it seems; one of the writers in the above mentioned blogs I read, called Revit sluggish. Obviously "not" an experienced Revit user or they would know how untrue a statement that is. The most cumbersome, painstaking and slow going part of Revit is "Proper Implementation" where you or a team create the content and everything else that is typically going to be needed to complete a project through to CD's. Yes I am alos sorry to inform you that there will always be ongoing content creation but then that should not be odd to anyone that's been in the industry any length of time because we all know who have blocks still being created for cad use; and how long has cad been around? My intent is not to champion Revit rather is promote the continued growth of BIM and encourage emerging technology. It is however beginning to look like you can't have one without the other; Revit/BIM. It has been world-widely advertised and well sold as the "Primer/Preferred BIM authored tool" and in some cases even mandated. Unfortunately early on it was oversold and underdeveloped leaving us little choice but to use AutoCAD and Excel in conjunction with Revit to get our documents close to what builders where accustom to building from. The good news is that with 2011's enhancements a lot of those issues have been resolved and maybe in 2012 they will address the Plumbing/Piping issues and needs like maybe provide ISO's or what would really be cool is Revit Process with intelligent P&ID's and even PFD's, sorry I digress.

Anyway below are the old definitions from the old way of staying broke by being poorly coordinated, not communicating (RFI's), building buildings that are too expensive to maintain and too expensive to tear down and too stubborn to retrofit, I meant the old methods that worked for a time.

Sorry I seemed to have gone off on a tangent again, anyway please pay special attention to the last sentence. As I stated at a conference at the Global learning Conference Center in 2005 I believe. While we may have scoffed at Deming and missed that Paradigm; with our auto industry suffering greatly for it. We did develop (yes me personally) QS and ISO this or that (Quality measures or Lean Processes) but really came too late for us reap its true value.
So (as stated at the conference) "we'd better develop and practice a proven method for Designing and Building Smarter more Sustainable Buildings in like manner of the American auto industry finally developed a better standard maybe we should follow suit." Oh and while I had the floor since quite a few software people were in attendance from around the world I threw in "and make your software's interoperability better you guys know which software needs to talk to which and while you're at it take a clue from Microsoft and give us greater functionality with more ease!" Those statements received a round of applause and a few "here here's" Well at least in my mind that's the way it went down but then I am one who has always seen/dream in color and in cartoon!

The design/build delivery system often cites the original "Master Builder" model used to build most pre-modern projects. Under the Master Builder approach, a central figure of the architect held total project accountability. From inception to completion, the master builder was the key organizational figure and strictly liable to the owner for defects, delays, and losses. The design/build system is a return to some of the fundamentals of the Master Builder approach.
For nearly the entire twentieth century, the concept of Design-Build was classified as a non-traditional construction method in the United States, which is the last country to still embrace the old standard of Design-Bid-Build.