Better, faster, cheaper is the mantra for today's building industry.

Constraining costs and schedules while improving building performance and safety has placed additional pressure on builders and the design community to find more efficient, productive and profitable ways of working together. Some firms have been experimenting with new ways of cooperating and co-working that may point the way to a sea change in how projects are designed and managed in the future.

As the authors of a new SmartMarket report from McGraw-Hill Construction point out that "one of the most fundamental ways that project owners can impact efficiency, productivity and profitability [is] the selection of a project delivery system."

The study surveyed owners, contractors and architects on their use and preference of project delivery systems. However, the results found no clear recommendation for any of the most frequently used systems (design-bid-build, design-build and construction management at risk), as well as for more novel approaches, such as integrated project delivery and design-build-operate-maintain.

Instead, perceptions differed in respondents' assessments depending on which factors mattered most to each constituency — reducing project cost, reducing project schedule, coming in under budget, finishing ahead of schedule, maximizing value and improving quality. The report is well worth a look to glean the pros and cons of each system reported by the various groups.

Of particular interest is a finding of the researchers themselves. In comparing the results of this study with other SmartMarket studies on building information modeling (BIM), LEAN construction practices and the rise of information mobility, the authors observe, "improved collaboration, communication and the ability to share information have a profound impact on efficiency, productivity and profitability."

Among those owners who had experience with integrated project delivery (IPD), which emphasizes collaboration communication and trust, the vast majority (80 percent or more) reported improved process efficiency, reduced risk of litigation, improved construction quality, improved sustainable building performance, and reduced construction costs. IPD is not the only process capable of producing such results. As the authors note, "improvements are possible in all of the established delivery methods."

Studies in other industries produce similar findings. What matters is not so much the collaborative model, but the fact that the various parties are collaborating, communicating and sharing information, that they work as a team and not as a kit of parts or, worse, a revolving door.

Experts in the building industry have been touting the benefits of collaboration for the past 10 years, but finding a model that works for owners, contractors, architects and others has proved elusive. One of the biggest stumbling blocks has been contracts, both from a legal and a checks-and-balances perspective. Questions arise as to who is in charge, who is liable and who is responsible if schedules, budgets and other agreements are not met.

The newsletter Project Management dedicated its June 2014 issue to the topic of IPD, with contributors weighing in on its pros and cons. While most agree that more collaboration and better integration of disciplines and services would benefit the industry, they also cite legal and contractual difficulties, as well as issues of performance and trust.

One author points out that most of today's practitioners lack the skills to work in an integrated process, noting that they are trained as specialists and are not accustomed to sharing tasks and design decisions. That may explain why in the SmartMarket study only 2 percent of architects and of contractors had worked on IPD projects in the past three years.

To try to overcome these limitations, a few firms have experimented with integrated design process and collaborative project delivery as less legally restrictive forms that produce many of the same benefits without incurring some of the risks. Note the authors of the SmartMarket report, while "the industry is experiencing a modest transition to great collaboration, it is evolving more slowly than many analysts have predicted."

Such caution is understandable in a time of great change and economic uncertainty. Nonetheless, tomorrow's buildings will require more — not less — integration and collaboration. Other efforts are needed to capitalize on the benefits of collaboration within the standard delivery systems or to evolve them into more integrated, collaborative models.

The desire to change is clearly there, but the way is not yet clear.