Fixed price to deliver a defined scope. Risk is pushed heavily down the chain, which can drive defensive behaviours (claims, minimal disclosure, “protect the margin”).
See also: Scope vs change order, Business case
A delivery model where the construction manager commits to deliver for a price (often via a GMP) and carries cost/schedule risk. Can improve coordination, but still often preserves adversarial incentives between parties.
See also: GMP, IPD
A contractual “cap” on reimbursable costs plus fee. If costs exceed the cap, the contractor typically absorbs the overrun (subject to Scope vs change order rules). Often paired with open-book cost visibility.
See also: Scope vs change order, Shared savings, Cost to complete forecasting
An incentive arrangement where if delivery comes in below an agreed target, savings are shared among parties. Intended to reduce win–lose dynamics, but can fail if the target isn’t credible or if parties still optimise locally.
See also: Shared risk / shared reward, GMP
An integrated delivery approach aligning key parties under one agreement with shared goals, shared governance, open-book transparency, and a shared Shared risk / shared reward pool—so teams operate as one system (often described as a “virtual company”).
See also: Shared risk / shared reward, Virtual company, Big Room, Co-location
A commercial mechanism where a portion of each party’s profit (or fee) is put at risk and earned back based on whole-project outcomes (cost, schedule, value, sometimes quality). It changes behaviour by making performance interdependent.
See also: IPD, Relatedness, Optimise the whole
A way of describing an IPD team: multiple organisations behaving like one enterprise for the project, with shared governance and shared economic outcomes—rather than negotiating across contract interfaces.
See also: IPD, Shared risk / shared reward
A Lean principle: make decisions to improve overall project outcomes (cost, schedule, value, quality) rather than maximising performance of one discipline, package, or organisation.
See also: Shared risk / shared reward, Business case, Cost to complete forecasting
The quality of working relationships and trust across the delivery network (owner, designer, builder, trades, users). Treated as production infrastructure because it reduces friction and increases early disclosure of risk.
See also: IPD, Big Room, Co-location, Huddles
A production view where work flows through explicit promises between people/teams, and reliability depends on making, tracking, and keeping those commitments.
See also: Network of commitments, LPS, PPC, Huddles
Work flows through explicit promises between people/teams. Reliability improves when commitments are coordinated, visible, and tracked.
See also: LPS, Huddles, PPC
Short feedback loops: problems trigger immediate learning and system adjustment, not end-of-project “lessons learned.”
See also: Active learning from failures, RFV, Huddles, Visual management
A shift from managing individual tasks to managing the flow of work across dependencies (readiness, handoffs, and constraint removal). Flow focus reduces stop/start work and prevents cascading delays.
See also: LPS, Takt time, Location-based scheduling, Schedule reliability
A pacing method that sets a consistent production rhythm—work moves through zones/areas in repeatable time “beats.” It exposes bottlenecks early and improves coordination across trades.
See also: Location-based scheduling, Flow vs task dependency, Schedule reliability
A Lean production control system that improves workflow reliability through collaborative planning at the level of the people who perform the work (“last planners”). Core elements include make-ready/constraint removal, weekly commitment planning, short-cycle coordination, and learning from plan failures.
See also: PPC, RFV, Huddles, Schedule reliability, Visual management
A Lean delivery approach where the team designs and plans to meet an agreed value outcome within a target cost (and often target schedule), using tight feedback loops between design, cost, constructability, and user needs.
See also: Intentional validation, Validation study, Business case, Cost to complete forecasting
A framing for early-phase validation: explicitly testing whether the proposed program and quality can be delivered within schedule and budget in a way that is supported by the business case—before the project “locks in” downstream commitments.
See also: Validation study, Business case, Program, Quality, Schedule, Budget
The formal justification for the investment—why the project exists, what benefits it must deliver, and the constraints/assumptions that must hold (including budget and timeframe). In the “stool” metaphor, it is the top that must be supported by program, quality, schedule, and budget.
See also: Intentional validation, Validation study, Optimise the whole
The functional scope and operational intent of what the facility must do (services, capacity, adjacencies, performance requirements). “Program” answers: what outcomes must this building enable?
See also: Quality, Business case, User lock-in, TVD
The required performance standard of the delivered asset (clinical function, safety, reliability, maintainability, user experience). In the validation framing, quality is a constraint that must be achieved—not traded away invisibly.
See also: Program, Business case, TVD, Design for fabrication
The time constraint for delivery (milestones and operational readiness dates), but in Lean/IPD it is managed through reliability and flow—not only a master schedule.
See also: Schedule reliability, LPS, PPC, Takt time
The financial constraint (capital cost and often operating implications). In Lean/TVD, budget becomes a design and delivery “guardrail,” not an after-the-fact scoreboard.
See also: TVD, Cost to complete forecasting, Business case
A structured early-phase study (often ~1–2% of project cost) used to confirm scope intent, schedule logic, cost confidence, risk profile, and delivery approach. The output becomes a credible baseline for commitments and governance.
See also: Intentional validation, Validation intent, User lock-in, RFI, Schedule reliability
Aligning on what is truly being built (and why) and what makes the plan credible—rather than assuming a drawing package guarantees certainty by a certain date.
See also: Validation study, Business case, Schedule reliability
Rules defining when user decisions become fixed and how later changes are approved (often requiring executive escalation for material change). Protects flow by preventing uncontrolled late change.
See also: Scope vs change order, Program, Validation study
Early design stage focused on concept, layout, function, and major system choices.
See also: Design Development, Validation study
Mid-stage design where systems are defined in detail, coordination increases, and constructability is validated.
See also: Schematic Design, BIM
Pushing some design elements deeper earlier—toward fabrication/shop-drawing level—to reduce uncertainty, improve constructability, and increase plan reliability.
See also: BIM, RFI, Flow vs task dependency
Using a digital model to coordinate systems, identify clashes, and validate buildability before construction. Reduces downstream rework and RFI load.
See also: RFI, Design for fabrication, BIM for risk management
Using BIM not just for coordination, but as a proactive risk control tool—identifying constructability risks, interface clashes, sequencing constraints, and scope ambiguities early enough to prevent schedule/cost shocks.
See also: BIM, Risk & opportunity tracking, Validation study
A formal request to clarify missing, ambiguous, or conflicting information. High RFI volume often signals upstream readiness and coordination failures.
See also: Validation study, BIM, LPS
A structured collaboration environment (physical or virtual) where key disciplines plan, coordinate, solve constraints, and make decisions quickly—reducing latency and serial handoff waste.
See also: Co-location, Relatedness, IPD, Visual management
Cross-functional team members working together (often full-time for key roles) to accelerate decisions and reduce coordination friction.
See also: Big Room, Relatedness
Short, frequent coordination meetings (often daily) to surface blockers, confirm near-term commitments, and trigger rapid problem-solving.
See also: LPS, Network of commitments, Daily check-in, Visual management
A short, regular operating rhythm to prevent “weekly drift” by making small corrections early. Often implemented via Huddles.
See also: Huddles, Schedule reliability, RFV
A transparent register of emerging risks and improvement opportunities, reviewed routinely. Used to improve the system—not to assign blame.
See also: Learning–action, BIM for risk management, Daily check-in
A forward-looking estimate of the cost required to finish the remaining work (often updated regularly). Used to detect emerging cost risk early—before it becomes an end-of-project surprise.
See also: Budget, GMP, Business case, Risk & opportunity tracking
A scheduling approach that plans and controls work by locations/zones (levels, rooms, areas) to stabilise trade flow, reduce interference, and improve predictability. Often paired with Takt time.
See also: Takt time, Flow vs task dependency, Schedule reliability
Making the state of the system visible (work readiness, commitments, constraints, risks, performance trends) so teams can coordinate and act quickly. Visuals support short-cycle control—especially in Big Room settings.
See also: LPS, PPC, RFV, Huddles, Big Room
A deliberate practice of treating misses and breakdowns as signals to improve the system—capturing reasons, analysing patterns, and implementing countermeasures.
See also: RFV, Learning tightly coupled with action, PPC, Risk & opportunity tracking
Scope is the value intent (what the project is meant to deliver). A change order is a contractual mechanism for cost/time adjustment when scope changes or entitlement conditions are met. Clear distinction reduces adversarial behaviour.
See also: GMP, User lock-in
A reliability metric used in LPS: the percentage of planned tasks completed as promised in the agreed planning window (often weekly). PPC is only useful when paired with learning.
See also: LPS, RFV, Schedule reliability, Visual management
A learning metric used in LPS to capture why planned work was not completed as promised. Categories are analysed to remove systemic constraints and improve reliability.
See also: LPS, PPC, Active learning from failures, Learning tightly coupled with action
Consistent performance against short-cycle commitments and milestone logic (not just the master schedule). Reliability is achieved through disciplined planning, readiness control, and fast learning loops.
See also: LPS, PPC, RFV, Huddles, Takt time, Location-based scheduling
