June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
26.148.1 - 26.148.16
Active Learning Games; Challenging Players’ Mindsets for Integrated Project Delivery XXX and XXX XX University X, XIntegrated Project Delivery (IPD) is fast becoming one of the new buzz words inconstruction thought and practice. Although IPD has its successes and continuesto grow, in both academia and the industry, IPD failures do exist. Much of theresearch surrounding IPD focuses on the integration of technology to streamlinethe construction management process however, little attention is given to thechange in relationships between the project players and how these individualsmust operate within this changed environment. One of the most common reasonscited for IPD failures is that the construction managers selected for these projectshad difficulty adjusting their mindsets to operate within a collaborativeenvironment despite being successful on other traditional projects. IPD is acollaborative approach to project delivery that requires a change from thetraditional competitive mindset that is pervasive throughout the constructionindustry. For decades, project team players (i.e. owners, contractors,subcontractors, designers, and other project participants) often compete with eachother ingraining a competitive spirit within construction managers. This spirit isnot easily changed just because a contract encourages collaboration. Therefore,students in an undergraduate construction management program at XXXUniversity learn about and participate in IPD through classroom lectures andactive learning exercises that challenge their competitive propensities. Initial teststhrough the Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument, that measures negotiationtactical propensities, indicate that typical construction management studentpersonalities tend to be competitive by nature. This paper presents two classroomgames (Prisoner’s Dilemma and The $20 Game) that students played to learnsome basic IPD fundamentals and to consider the collaboration versescompetition dichotomy within an IPD environment. Learning outcomeassessments via standard classroom testing mechanisms were performed and thechanges of competitive verses collaborative propensities via student surveys aremeasured and their respective results are presented.
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2015 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015