Partnering Magazine January/February 2015 by Partnering Magazine

Issue 1 January/February 2015

the ipi Partnering specifications Implementing Partnering in Your Organization

INSIDE: page 8

page 18

Working Together

Accountability Works!

World- Cla s s Inno v ators. L andm a rk Buildings. Ins piring Pe rformance.

www.henselphelps.com

Delivering dynamic projects through innovation and collaboration.

CONTENTS INTERNATIONAL PARTNERING INSTITUTE IPI is a non-profit 501(c) 3 charitable organization that is funded by our members and supporters who wish to change the culture of construction from combative to collaborative. Phone: (925) 447-9100

BOARD OF ADVISORS

Features

January / February 2015 The Partnering Specification

John Martin, San Francisco International Airport

IN THIS ISSUE

Larry Anderson, Anderson Partnering Roddy Boggus, Parsons Brinckerhoff Pierre Bigras, PG&E

Larry Eisenberg, Ovus Partners 360 Michael Ghilotti, Ghilotti Bros, Inc. Richard Grabinski, Flatiron West, Inc. Dan Himick, C.C. Myers, Inc. Randy Iwasaki, Contra Costa Trans. Authority Mark Leja, Caltrans

Committee Spotlight Academic team from

Pete Matheson, Granite Construction

Michigan State visits SFO

Geoff Neumayr, San Francisco International

to look at the positive

Airport Jim Pappas, Hensel Phelps Construction Co.

effects of Partnering

Zigmund Rubel, Aditazz Ivar Satero, San Francisco International Airport

Executive Director’s Report Resolve to Collaborate More in 2015 and Beyond

Stuart Seiden, County of Fresno Thomas Taylor, Webcor Builders David Thorman, CA Div. of the State Architect, Ret. John Thorsson, NCC Construction Sverige AB Len Vetrone, Skanska USA Building

The IPI Partnering Specification

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Get Partnering going in your

Rob Reaugh, MDR

organization by implementing the

FOUNDER & CEO

Partnering Specifications in 2015!

Best Practices Working Together: How to start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee

Sue Dyer, MBA, MIPI, MDRF

EDITORIAL OFFICE: SUBSCRIPTIONS/ INFORMATION International Partnering Institute 291 McLeod Street Livermore, CA 94559 Phone: (925) 447-9100

Email: ed@partneringinstitute.org www.partneringinstitute.org

Facilitator’s Corner

Research Roundup Good partnering can indeed

DESIGN/CREATIVE

be measured, as shown by a

Michelle Vejby

study of the Woodrow Wilson

Email: mvejby@msn.com

Bridge mega-program.

The ability to be accountable is essential for developing a high trust relationship and collaborative

COPYRIGHT Partnering Magazine is published by the International Partnering Institute, 291 McLeod Street, Livermore, CA 94550. Six bi-monthly issues are published annually. Contents copyright 2015 International Partnering Institute, all rights reserved. Subscription rates for non-members, $75 for six electronic

Cover photo courtesy Daryl Jacques, Jacques & Associates. IPI Partnered Project of the Year, Diamond Level Award 2014; Utah DOT, SR-193 2000 West to I-15 Project

issues. Hard copy issues are available only to IPI members. Additional member subscriptions are $75 each for six issues. Postmaster please send address changes to IPI, 291 McLeod Street, Livermore, CA 94550.

www.partneringinstitute.org

January/February 2015 Partnering Magazine

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Resolve to Collaborate More Rob Reaugh, MDR IPI Executive Director

appy 2015 to you!

routinely achievable?

Every January around

In construction, we have

the world, people take

learned that it takes a three-

Magazine we dive deeply

we relied on Caltrans’

into how Partnering helps us

structured partnering

with all three steps.

program, which provided

a moment to pause and set

step, culture change process

goals for the upcoming year

to set and deliver on our

developing a structure

processes for educating

in the form of resolutions...

goals. First, we co-create

around the goals, we

project teams so partnering

like maybe this year I will

goals to ensure the project

feature the IPI Collaborative

is consistent throughout a

finally organize my desk in a

team buys in. Second, we

Partnering Model via the IPI

large, complex organization.

way that I don’t need to hire

set up a structure to deliver

Matrix and IPI Specifications.

For Vertical construction,

a survey crew to help me find

on those goals. Third, we

The Matrix establishes a

we used San Francisco

important notes.

measure the results and

scalable partnering process,

International Airport’s multi-

adjust as needed to make

based on budget and risks

tiered program intended

resolution into practice? How

sure the goals are achieved.

for each project. The IPI

to engage stakeholders and

do you make goals become

In this issue of Partnering

Specs actually codify the

end-users in the process.

structured approach to

The net result is a scaleable

partnering intended to

partnering process that can

develop collaborative

be applied by projects of all

cultures on projects in a

sizes and types. If a project

routine way. The Matrix and

team faces risks (political

Specs were developed by IPI

scrutiny, a new delivery

Committees as a collection

method, challenging brown

of best practices, based on

field construction, etc.), the

thousands of partnered

team can “Level up” and use

projects. In Horizontal

the next Level of the Spec,

(engineering) construction,

and meet more frequently

But how do you convert a

Are you ready to reap the benefits of a more collaborative culture in your projects? Get ready for reduced claims, and improved budget, schedule and job satisfaction. 4

Partnering Magazine January/February 2015

For setting goals and

scalability and outstanding

www.partneringinstitute.org

momentum throughout the project when they are using this accountability tool (page 18). We also explore Larry Anderson (MIPI), and Brian Polkinghorn’s, (Ph.D.) important quantitative research on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Mega-Program, which a) demonstrates how effectively partnered projects tend to perform better in terms of budget and schedule and b) validates the use of partnering surveys as a viable measure for important project outcomes including safety, quality, schedule, budget, dealing with the

Interstate 880/State Route 92 Interchange Reconstruction

community, etc.

Hayward, CA

So for IPI, promoting the IPI Matrix and the IPI

2012 IPI Partnered Project of the Year, Diamond Level

Collaborative Partnering to ensure an outstanding

Specifications program is our

project result. The IPI Specs

2015 New Year’s Resolution.

are now ready to be adopted

We have already had key

by any owner and plugged

public agencies in the City

into your program.

and County of San Francisco

In order to ensure

and around the country adapt

that the team is a) telling

the Specifications for their

the truth and b) held

respective programs. Now,

accountable to the goals

we need to identify more

they set, an important

owners who are ready to

feature of the Collaborative

take collaboration on projects

Partnering Specs is that

to the next level when they

the team use Partnering

adopt the IPI Specs. When

surveys administered by

they do, they will reap the

a professional neutral

benefits of more collaborative

Partnering Facilitator. To

cultures within their projects,

borrow from Physicist

which will result in reduced

Lord Kelvin, “if you

claims, improve budget

cannot measure it, you

and schedule and improve

As one of North America’s largest transportation and infrastructure contractors, our commitment to building the best is demonstrated in the projects we build and the partnerships we develop. Our success is dependent upon our relationships with owners, partners, designers, subcontractors and community members. Flatiron works closely with our partners to develop innovative solutions that benefit everyone, and we’re proud of what we’ve created together. The more than 20 partnering awards Flatiron has won in the past decade serve as recognition of these relationships and

cannot improve it.” From

job satisfaction. In order

the resulting successful projects.

Sue Dyer, MIPI we learn

to change the culture of

how Partnering surveys

construction we need to work

(Scorecards) became an

together — it benefits all of

industry best practice and

us. Join me in this mission —

To learn more about Flatiron’s innovation in partnering visit

how teams tend to gain

it will make for a great 2015!

www.flatironcorp.com

www.partneringinstitute.org

January/February 2015 Partnering Magazine

COMMITTEE SPOTLIGHT

Michigan State University Academic Team Visits SFO F

rom December 17-20, 2014, IPI welcomed Professor

for semi-trucks). Throughout the project, the team worked in

Sinem Mollaoglu (Korkmaz), Ph D. and Graduate

an operating airfield environment and managed to shave the

Student Shivam Sohani of Michigan State University

schedule from 120 days to 88.

Construction Management Program to San Francisco

The RSA project was designed in-house by SFO staff and

International Airport. The agenda for the three day visit was

built by Golden Gate Constructors, a Joint Venture between

packed with tours, meetings and interviews. The full study will

DeSilva Gates Construction (Dublin, CA) and Graniterock

be emerging in January 2016.

(Watsonville, CA). Royal Electric (Sacramento, CA) was also

In 2015, Professor Mollauglu and Mr. Sohani will be

a key contributor to the project and Parsons Brinckerhoff

launching a new research project focused on how Partnering

(New York, NY) provided Construction Management support.

effects team communication and levels of integration within

The team used the Collaborative Partnering Model including

a project. Recent studies by McGraw Hill, DBIA, and others

monthly partnering sessions lead by OrgMetrics LLC

are focusing on the need for project teams to improve

(Livermore, CA) with the Executive Team, Core Team and the

integration. The methodology Dr. Mollauglu uses focuses on

Stakeholder team level sessions. The project team also used

how project teams actually communicate with each other. The

monthly Scorecards.

study begins with an analysis of the project’s communication

In order to create a highly collaborative environment and in

system along with analysis of the Partnering Session Reports

an effort to promote in-person interaction, the entire project

and Scorecards. The net result will be that she can physically

team was co-located in portable offices near the south field

demonstrate and model how Partnering affects the teams’ level of integration and communication. This insight will allow us to examine how high-functioning teams communicate and help us unpack “how” a high-functioning team interacts versus more traditional project teams. This is a brand new research methodology and IPI is deeply excited to be at the cutting edge along with MSU! For the Research, the MSU team will be studying SFO’s recent $92 million Runway Safety Area Project. This was a fastpaced, FAA-funded, design-bid-build project, which included safety upgrades to key Airport Runways including 1L and 1R and the installation of an Engineered Materials Arrestor System (EMAS) arrays at the ends of each Runway. The EMAS consists of cellular, crushable cement that slows an aircraft if it overshoots the airstrip (like freeway off-ramp runways 6

Partnering Magazine January/February 2015

From Left: Scott Stuart (PB), Shivam Sohani (MSU), Jimmy Chiu (SFO) and Sinem Korkmaz (Mollauglu) on the EMAS www.partneringinstitute.org

Panoramic View from Air Traffic Control Tower (Pictured from Left, Sinem Mollauglu (MSU), Scott Stuart (PB), Jeff Cooper (Cooper-Pugeda)

runways. During Dr. Mollauglu’s presentation to the project team, members stressed how co-location forced them to interact informally and e-mail became used only as it was needed to memorialize changes to the project plan. The team also emphasized how decisions for this project had to be made very quickly and it was common to implement multiple solutions to a single problem and then repeat the best solution when it inevitably rose again in the field. The JV Contractor team managed to complete the job with an outstanding quality rating and the project had zero time loss injuries. Each JV contractor received a $1M early completion bonus for the project. During the trip, SFO’s RSA Project Manager Jimmy Chiu served as our host and organized tours for IPI Executive

Photo (above): EMAS Array

Director Rob Reaugh, Dr. Mollauglu and Mr. Sohani. We were able to visit the airfield to see the completed runways and EMAS arrays, visit the new Air Traffic Control Tower, the IPI Award-winning Terminal 2 and the new construction of Terminal 3. The research team also attended a partnering session and went through the Collaborative Partnering Orientation Training. IPI is deeply excited to have an Academic team with a deep understanding of the Collaborative Partnering Mode!! We should also mention our gratitude for our hosts, SFO International Airport and our JV Contractor members, DeSilva Gates Construction and Graniterock Company who sponsored our first Academic visit to California. The final research product is planned to be launched by December 2015. Stay tuned for updates!

www.partneringinstitute.org

WANT TO JOIN THE IPI TEAM? IPI is searching for an Assistant Director to help our organization grow. You must believe in consensus-building, have a passion for the construction industry and be comfortable working with and loving our international membership. IPI is the world’s only organization focused on developing the process of Collaborative Partnering. Our mission is to change the culture of construction from combative to collaborative. Send cover letter and resume to ED@partneringinstitute.org, or call (925) 447-9100 for details. Contact us for a full job description or visit https://employers.indeed.com/m#jobs/ view?id=81fb308d413a PA R T N E R I N G I N S T I T U T E . O R G

January/February 2015 Partnering Magazine

BEST PRACTICES

Working Together

How to start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee

here is no doubt that the construction industry needs to become more collaborative. We lose billions of

dollars each year due to loss of productivity, miscommunication, excess administration and claims. All of these dollars could be used to build things. The fastest way to improve collaboration for an agency’s projects is to engage the contractors, designers, and key stakeholders that build your projects every day in a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee (CPSC). A CPSC is made up of Executive Leaders from each of the key entities that deliver projects and the role of the group is

“Partnering is a Journey—not a destination,” Mark Leja, Chairman of the Caltrans Construction Partnering Steering Committee (2007-2014)

to identify common “Barriers to collaboration on projects” and develop processes and procedures to overcome those “barriers.” Many of the processes and procedures included in this guide were originally developed by the Caltrans Construction Partnering Steering Committee. We are grateful for their leadership and guidance! To assist owners in launching a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee, IPI has just published a new Owners’ Guide entitled “Working Together: How to Start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee.” This easy to read guide walks owners through ten steps to starting their Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee (CPSC). Please keep in mind that the process highlighted in the Guide is for large, complex organizations, but the process can absolutely be scaled for smaller entities. Contact IPI for details.

Step 1 Decide to form a Collaborative Steering Committee (CPSC) The first step is to decide to launch a CPSC and commit to making it happen. A CPSC is an executive body formed to steer the culture of your

Partnering Magazine January/February 2015

www.partneringinstitute.org

construction program. The joint committee will include an

and make commitments around them. The commitments, the

equal distribution of Owner and Industry participants and

decision-making process, and the membership of the CPSC will be

its responsibility is to set policies, overcome barriers, and

memorialized in a Charter, which will be signed by all members.

measure progress. This group will “Steer” and is entrusted with developing whatever is needed to make Partnering become the way you do business.

Step 2 Identify and Invite your CPSC Members

Step 4 Establish Your Subcommittees, Co-Chairs, Charter, and Goals Once the subcommittees are formed, they will need to figure out how to best overcome the barrier they have been assigned.

A great deal of the success of your CPSC will rest on having the

Typically, each subcommittee will have co-chairs (one from the

“right” people involved. You will first need a Sponsor for your

Owner and one from Industry). You may also need to invite key

program (typically the Owner’s CEO, Director, etc.) that can pull

stakeholders who have influence on your barrier. Make sure

people together and actually make things happen. Next you will

to set 12-month goals and keep track of the subcommittee’s

gather senior leaders within your organization that can make

progress with a Charter. Your Collaborative Partnering

policy changes. The Sponsor and leaders will then need to identify

Facilitator (CP Facilitator) and Partnering Program Manager

whom to invite and make a formal invitation. Ultimately, the

(PPM) will help you drive the effort forward.

Committee will gather and launch the effort in a Kick-off.

Step 3 Hold Your CPSC Kick-Off Workshop

Step 5 Conduct Quarterly CPSC Meetings In order to become a high-performing team, a best practice is for

The Kick-off Workshop will establish both the initiatives the

the committee members to have a social gathering before each

group will want to work on and the CPSC’s commitment to

CPSC Meeting. This really helps cohesion. Also, it is common for

working together. During the kick-off workshop the CPSC will

the Facilitator to kick-off the meeting with education or for the

work to identify barriers to true collaboration on projects. The

CPSC to invite an actual project team in to share lessons learned

CPSC will identify the top barriers and form subcommittees

from the field. During the Quarterly Meetings, the CPSC will

www.partneringinstitute.org

January/February 2015 Partnering Magazine

BEST PRACTICES develop annual goals, subcommittees will report out, and the CPSC will vet proposals.

Working Together

Step 6 Create and Vet the Partnering Enhancement Proposals (PEPs) to Gain Consensus Each subcommittee will need to explore and understand a

How to Start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee

barrier/issue to which they have been assigned. They will hone in on the best way to overcome the barrier and then will design a Partnering Enhancement Proposal (PEP) to gain consensus on

Sue Dyer

how to attack the issue. Once the PEP is developed and vetted by the subcommittee, the Co-Chairs sign it and it is presented to

OWNER’S GUIDE

the CPSC for vetting/confirmation and adoption.

Step 7 Work to Implement Your PEPs Every PEP should include an outline for the implementation

Step 8 Monitor and Evaluate Progress

process and associated documentation. If, for example,

In order to maintain momentum, it is important to track

the PEP recommends a change to a Specification, the PEP

progress on the newly adopted PEPs and make adjustments

should include the proposed language. It is important to also

where needed. Also, the CPSC should evaluate the “change”

assign an “owner” for any proposal. Typically, once a PEP

to confirm that it is working once it is embedded into policy

is agreed to by the CPSC, the Partnering Program Manager

and practice.

and Facilitator will work to develop an implantation plan, milestones, deliverables and a schedule. The “owner” will

Step 9 Develop Program Level Performance Measures

work with them to roll out the plan.

You started the journey by identifying barriers to partnering/ collaboration and you have developed new policies and practices to overcome each barrier. Now you want to measure whether your project results are improving. It is crucial to co-create program measures along with industry and endusers to ensure that you are measuring the right outcomes. Also, make sure to include time during your quarterly CPSC

We believe in strong partnerships

meetings so you can report on your outcomes once the measures are in place.

Step 10 Develop Plan Annually to Continuously Improve Every twelve months, the CPSC will evaluate their progress and identify ongoing PEPs and confirm those which have been effectively completed and implemented. Typically you

WEBCOR.COM

will hold an annual planning meeting to determine which subcommittees are ongoing and which should be sunset. Also, you can share lessons learned throughout the year so the CPSC maintains positive momentum IPI’s new Owners’ Guide entitled Working Together: How to Start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee is now available. Just email ED@PartneringInstitute.org to get your copy, or to get copies to share with those organizations that you wish to establish a CPSC with. Remember that you can tailor the process for your program and that one copy is free for each IPI member.

Partnering Magazine January/February 2015

www.partneringinstitute.org

Collaboration. Innovation. Sustainability. Partnering to build a better future for our customers and communities.

James B. Hunt Library, North Carolina State University

George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Terminal B Redevelopment, Houston TX

Gold Line Bridge, Arcadia, CA

2013 NAIOP Community Enhancement Day, Seattle, WA

usa.skanska.com www.partneringinstitute.org

January/February 2015 Partnering Magazine

PARTNERING SPECIFICATION

The IPI Partnering The IPI Specifications AT IPI, WE ARE OFTEN ASKED, “WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GET PARTNERING GOING FOR MY ORGANIZATION OR TEAM?” THE SHORT ANSWER IS – IMPLEMENT A PARTNERING SPECIFICATION! IN 2015, IPI IS FOCUSED ON HELPING YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION ADOPT THE IPI COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING SPECIFICATIONS

Collaborative Partnering is a proven process that has helped public and private agencies improve construction project results in terms of schedule, safety, quality, and budget. In 2013 and 2014, IPI Award-winning projects stated that $1 spent on partnering contributed to $96 dollars in savings to the project!

A Collaborative Partnering Matrix and Specs – the first steps in the journey Step 1: Adopt the IPI Matrix The IPI Matrix is broken up into Levels – 1 Spec per Level. The Matrix helps your organization move from a project-by-project approach to a program-wide approach for Partnering by looking at the size

(SPECS) TO IMPROVE PROJECT DELIVERY. THIS

and risks of a project and then choosing the “right” amount of

ARTICLE WILL QUICKLY WALK YOU THROUGH

Partnering for each job. Over thousands of projects, IPI Committees

THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THE IPI SPECS AND WILL INTRODUCE YOU TO IPI RESOURCES THAT AID YOU IN ADOPTING A PARTNERING PROGRAM. THE IPI

have learned that Partnering works best when it is scaleable—a Mega Project team must typically deal with many more risks than $10M project team. With the Matrix, your Project Managers can look at the project budget and risks (complexity, political significance,

COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING SPECIFICATIONS

prior relationships with the team, etc.) and choose to “Level up” to a

AND MATRICES WERE ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED

higher Level of Partnering. The higher the level, the more partnering

FOR VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION BY OUR VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE IN 2012 AND FOR HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION BY OUR HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE IN 2013. SINCE THEN, MORE THAN 10 OWNERS HAVE USED THE MATRIX AND SPECIFICATIONS TO ADOPT PARTNERING, PROGRAM-WIDE, ON THEIR PROJECTS. 12

Partnering Magazine January/February 2015

activities your team does. Once you select your Level – you choose the corresponding Spec. Now your project teams are choosing the “right” amount of Partnering for every job!

Step 2: Adopt the Specs A Partnering Specification (Spec) outlines the commercial terms behind the partnering relationship of the Owner, the Prime Contractor, and the Designer (the three named parties in the contract). Now the team can budget the time and costs associated www.partneringinstitute.org

(when appropriate), a Partnering Follow-up Plan, and Training (when appropriate).

Section 2 – Description In Section 2, the Spec defines key terms and outlines the goals of Partnering. Some of the key terms are: Project Team — the Owner/Owners Rep, the Owner’s Consultants, the Contractor, the Designer, the sub-contractor(s), and other stakeholders including Government agencies, tenants, materials suppliers, concessionaires, and third parties affected by the construction project. Multi-Tiered Partnering — For larger, more complex projects (Level 3 and higher), the Project Team is often divided into these subgroups: • Executive Level team — high level leaders from the owner, contractor, architect and key subcontractors • Core Team — Project Managers, field superintendents, and relevant executives • Stakeholder Team — comprised of external stakeholders (subs, with it. IPI members have learned that the Spec must REQUIRE

suppliers, etc.) and internal stakeholders (maintenance, facility

Partnering to be implemented.

operators, funders, etc.)

In the Spec the Owner clearly defines how frequently the

The Goals of Partnering — central partnering objectives,

partnering team will meet and how the contractor can include

including: (1) early and regular communication, (2) shared trust,

funding for partnering within the bid so all can estimate the costs

(3) development and attainment of mutual goals, (4) strategies for

based on the size and risk of each project. Now the entire team

using risk management, (5) timely communication and decision-

understands the level of commitment required and the owner can

making (6) resolving potential problems at the lowest possible level

develop an expectation for return on investment.

(7) following up with the partnering meetings and workshops, and

Understanding the Spec The Spec is intended for Contract Specifications Division 1 and does not change the underlying Contract or delivery method in any way. Partnering is a structured, confidential process and the objective of partnering is to help the team co-create goals, have accountability to those goals, and to adopt a collaborative project culture that can overcome any technical issue the project team faces. The IPI Specs are broken into five sections and we share a few highlights in this article. You can download and implement the Specifications directly from the IPI Owner’s Toolbox Website

(8) establishing project surveys.

Collaborative Partnering is a proven process that has helped public and private agencies improve construction project results... IPI Award-winning projects stated that $1 spent on partnering contributed to $96 dollars in savings to the project.

(http://partneringinstitute.org/owners-toolbox/).

Section 1 – General

In Section 3 – Partnering Implementation

Section 1 is the overview of the Spec. It outlines the Owner’s

In Section 3, the Collaborative Partnering Model Elements and

expectation that the prime contractor, architect, subcontractors, and

the Charter are defined. Partnering is initiated when the team

owner stakeholders will all work in a collaborative fashion to deliver

mutually selects an IPI Certified Professional Neutral Facilitator

the project. This also highlights the key Elements included in the

to help steer the partnering process. During the Partnering Kick-

IPI Collaborative Partnering process including a mutually agreed,

off session, the Facilitator guides the team in developing the

IPI Certified Independent Professional Neutral Partnering

Partnering Charter.

Facilitator, the development of a Partnering Charter, a joint evaluation process (project Surveys), Multi-tiered partnering www.partneringinstitute.org

The Charter is specific to every construction project and memorializes all commitments the team has made. It is a living January/February 2015 Partnering Magazine

PARTNERING SPECIFICATION IPI Vertical Construction Project Partnering Matrix Example Potential Risk Factors Every Construction project encounters risks. Below is a short list of typical risks that a job may encounter. If your project encounters ANY of these risk factors, elevate your Partnering to the next higher level to ensure project success. Desired Level of Engagement

Expected Benefits and Approximate Cost to Owner*

Very High

Very high accountability, Issues tracked and decisions made timely, Momentum maintained as progress continues in spite of issues that arise Approx. $20,000/qtr

Requirements: All Project Level 4 Requirements and... Monthly Partnering Meetings (Design through Construction) Multi-Tiered Partnering (Executive - Core Team - Stakeholder) Special Task Forces for specific issue resolution

New Contractors or CM, New subs/relationships

High

More timely decisionmaking in field, Stakeholders phased in and out, Designers involved throughout process Approx. $10-15,000/qtr

Requirements: All Project Level 3 Requirements and... Quarterly Partnering Meetings (Design through Construction) Multi-Tiered Partnering (Executive - Core Team - Stakeholder) Stakeholder on-boarding/off-boarding Subcontractor on-boarding/off-boarding Partnering Training required

Established Relationships New CM, Subs, Agencies, or other key Stakeholders

Moderate/High (seeking risk mitigation and project efficiencies)

Increased Predictability Reduced (zero) Claims Improved Safety Improved Schedule On or under budget Approx. $5-10,000/qtr

Requirements: All Project Level 2 Requirements and... Quarterly Partnering Meetings Monthly Scorecards Executive and Core Team Partnering Training - when team agrees Requirements: All Project Level 1 Requirements and... Professional Neutral Facilitator for Kick-off (minimum) 2 Project Scorecards (minimum) Charter Executive Sponsorship Field-Level Decision Making Including Stakeholders Dispute Resolution Ladder and DRB Facilitated Dispute Resolution Requirements: Professional Neutral Facilitator (if needed) Charter Executive Sponsorship Field-Level Decision Making Including Stakeholders Dispute Resolution Ladder and DRA/DRB Facilitated Dispute Resolution

Level

Project Value

Complexity

Political Significance

Relationships

Very Large/Mega (Airport Terminal, Hospital, Power Plants, etc.) ($250M - $500M+)

Highly Technical and Complex Design and Construction

High visibility/ oversight Significant strategic project

New Project Relationships including: New Contractors, Sub, Agencies, Third-parties, CM, High Turnover rate of Subs High Potential for conflict (strained relationship, previous litigation, or high probability of claims)

Large (New design, new contracting method, or challenging Rehabilitation/ Renovation) ($25M - $250M)

Medium ($10M - $25M)

High Complexity (short timeline/ Probable schedule constraints, Organization image uncommon at stake materials, new supply chain, etc.

Small ($5M - $10M)

Micro/Short Duration ($0 - $5M)

Increased Complexity

Moderate Complexity

Standard Complexity

Likely, depending on the size of the client and place of importance

Unlikely, unless in a place of importance

Established Relationships New Subs New Agencies New Stakeholders

Moderate (seeking risk mitigation and project efficiencies)

Increased Predictability Reduced (zero) Claims Improved Safety Improved Schedule On or under budget Approx. $5-10,000/qtr

Unlikely, unless in a place of importance

Established Relationships New Subs New Agencies New Stakeholders

Low to Moderate For small budget and/or short time line projects, Partnering can reduce risk and focus on project efficiencies

Increased Predictability Reduced (zero) Claims Improved Safety Improved Schedule On or under budget Approx. $1,000/qtr

IPI Vertical Construction Project Partnering Matrix

Partnering Elements

*Costs of Facilitation based on $5,000/day and $500 per scorecard Please note that Daily rates for Facilitators can vary widely

http://www.partneringinstitute.org/IPI_vertical_construction_partnering.html

document to be referred to throughout the life of the project. The Charter begins with “core” goals: On Budget, On Time, Safe, and No Rework (Quality). Charters typically also include project specific goals (no customer complaints, no SWPPP violations, win an IPI Partnering Award, Trust, etc.). The Charter will also include the Partnering Follow-up Plan, which includes follow-up Partnering sessions and the use of project surveys. The Charter also includes the Dispute Resolution Ladder (which supports field-level decision making and timely issue resolution)

Feb-14

Section 5 – Partnering Dispute Resolution

Section 5 outlines the Facilitated Dispute Resolution process (FDR). In FDR an IPI Certified Professional Partnering Facilitator serves as a neutral and assists the project team in resolving issues around a potential claim while the project is still ongoing. IPI recommends that project teams include the FDR process so they have every potential method at their disposal to resolve outstanding project issues before they fester and become a claim. For more information on FDR, contact IPI.

and other Dispute Resolution process (like Dispute Review Boards,

Final Thoughts

Mediation, etc.).

Remember, the IPI Matrix and Collaborative Partnering Specifications were

Finally, the Charter includes a plan around evaluating the

developed by IPI Committees based on experience from thousands of

Facilitator, and whether the team will receive additional training in

partnered projects. When you adopt them, you can adopt the appropriate

Partnering. At the end of the document, the team signs the Charter

“Level” of Spec based on the size and risk profile of your project. For

to demonstrate a personal commitment to the successful execution

more guidance, make sure to consult IPI’s “On Time On Budget”, the IPI

of the project.

Owner’s Toolbox webpage, and be on the lookout for the IPI Collaborative

Section 4 – Partnering Payment

Partnering Specifications Guide coming in 2015. So, when your team is ready to jump in the Partnering pool, adopt

Section 4 addresses who pays for the partnering process. Typically,

the IPI Matrix and Spec based on the size and risk of your project and

IPI recommends that the owner pay for the facilitated partnering

Dive In! Over the past 25 years of Partnering, most teams have gotten

through a project change order or an allowance in the contract and

partnering going by just giving it a shot! Just remember that when

pay 100% of the fee for the Professional Facilitator to remove all

you do, set the expectation that a kick-off session is not enough! As

barriers to implementation. Historically in Horizontal (Heavy Civil)

IPI Certified Partnering Facilitator Neal Flesner of Ventura Consulting

Construction, the Contractor (who self performs the majority of the

Group has said, “Partnering is not just New Year’s Resolution—you must

work) and Owner split the fee 50/50.

follow up to make it work!”

Partnering Magazine January/February 2015

www.partneringinstitute.org

WINNER OF THE 2014 CALTRANS EXCELLENCE IN PARTNERING AWARD “BEST IN CLASS” FOR PROJECTS GREATER THAN $50 MILLION Highway 65 Lincoln Bypass Project Caltrans District 3, Placer County

B U I L D I N G C A L I F O R N I A F O R S E V E N T Y- F I V E Y E A R S 11555 Dublin Boulevard, P.O. Box 2909, Dublin, California 94568-2909 925-829-9220 w w w . d e s i lva g at e s . c o m Contractors License No. 704195A

RESEARCH ROUNDUP

What Gets Measured — Truly Gets Done I n February, 2011, Larry Anderson, MIPI, and Brian

The Setup

Polkinghorn, Ph.D. published a study called “Efficacy

It has historically been challenging to measure Partnering, in part

of Partnering on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project:

because every project has unique challenges and also because

Empirical Evidence of Collaborative Problem-Solving

teams do not always “partner” in the same way, so comparing

Benefits” (WWB study). The WWB study is important for

them to each other can be problematic. What is fortunate about

partnering research for two reasons: First, the study validated

the WWB study is that 19 projects of varying size, duration, and

the use of project surveys (Scorecards) across a huge data set.

complexity were partnered and measured in a similar way.

Second, the study demonstrated that effectively partnered

So, although there were nuanced differences between how

projects have better results in terms of issue resolution, budget,

project teams communicated, set goals and evaluated their own

schedule and safety.

partnering, each team (a) developed a signed Charter document

The Woodrow Wilson Bridge project was a $2.5 billion, 8 year

memorializing an issue resolution process and project-specific

mega-program comprised of 19 smaller projects, which ranged

goals; (b) used a partnering survey based on those goals; (c) and

in size from $3M to $236M and in duration from 18 months to

each attended regular partnering workshops.

5 years. The project involved the rehabilitation of the Interstate 95 Bridge crossing the Potomac River at the Maryland/Virginia State line near Washington, D.C. This project was extremely complex and politically sensitive. Fortunately, the team managed to deliver outstanding results by nearly every important measure (budget, schedule, quality, and safety). Each of the 19 projects were partnered, relying on regular partnering sessions and all of them used a monthly partnering survey to measure and track the

“Good partnering can be measured by the team’s satisfaction with budget and schedule performance”

teams’ commitments. The WWB study yielded many interesting results, but the

No other Partnering study has been able to look so deeply

key highlights are that a) project surveys are an effective

into the project survey process, evaluate how effectively

and important tool for partnered projects and b) partnering

teams are rating themselves, and estimate whether effective

works! In the study, projects with a high “Collaboration Score”

partnering allows teams to resolve issues, and maintain project

(effectively partnered projects), had a very strong correlation

budgets and schedule as intended.

to effective Issue Resolution and Budget Compliance, and had

Over the course of the project, project team members filled out

a somewhat strong correlation to Schedule Compliance and

more than 6,000 surveys and attended 354 partnering workshops

effective Community Relationships. The WWB study also vetted

and. This “goldmine” of partnering data was harvested by

the utility of project surveys by demonstrating that project

Anderson and Polkinghorn and they found a number of key

teams accurately assessed their own Safety Scores (in terms of

correlations supporting the use of Partnering as an important and

OSHA Case Rate).

essential practice for projects, both large and small.

Partnering Magazine January/February 2015

www.partneringinstitute.org

The Measurement

• Safety (correlation of Partnering Safety Score vs. OSHA

During the 8 year mega-program, the survey questions were

Case Rate is -0.500) — Teams with a high Safety Score have

developed by each of the 19 project teams based on Charter

a medium correlation to a low reportable OSHA Case Rate.

goals. All survey questions were scored from 1-4 (one is lowest

In other words, teams self-rate their safety performance

‘below expectations’ and 4 is highest ‘above expectations’) and

pretty effectively.

all surveys were conducted via a password-protected project

Anderson and Polkinghorn also found that:

website. Six measurements (Communication, Cooperation, Issue

• Bid Results had a low correlation (-0.372) with the

Resolution, Safety, Schedule, and Teamwork) were used on all

Collaboration Score — in other words, the level of

19 projects. Material clearance (18), environmental compliance

collaboration on a project was not predetermined by how

(16), quality (12), budget (8), and other key goals were used on multiple projects. In order to measure effective partnering, Anderson and

aggressively the contractor bid in order to win the job. • Regional Firms had a modest correlation (0.419) with the Collaboration Score vs. National firms — although

Polkinghorn created a project “Collaboration Score”. The

one might assume that regional contractors may have

“Collaboration Score” is intended to measure the “soft side” of

more interest in developing collaboration, there was little

partnering and is the sum of the average scores for three key

difference in national vs. regional contractor’s ability to

measures taken on each project: Teamwork, Cooperation, and

effectively partner with the owner.

Communication. The “Collaboration Score” was than correlated

To summarize, Anderson and Polkinghorn found that good

with key measurements across all projects including schedule

partnering can be measured by the team’s satisfaction with

compliance, budget compliance, safety and others. Correlations

budget and schedule performance, as well as the team’s ability

are measured from -1 to 1. A number close to 1 or -1 is a high

to resolve issues. They also found that the effective partnering

correlation, a number near zero in either direction means that

(measured by “Collaboration Score”) was not predetermined by

there is a low correlation.

bid results or the proximity of the prime’s headquarters.

They used statistical correlations to determine whether (a)

So the take home message is to use monthly project

Partnering was doing what it was intended to do (improve

surveys! The WWB Study revealed that teams a) tend to give

team issue resolution, conflict prevention, and schedule and

consistently reliable and accurate responses b) partnering

budget compliance) and (b) Determine how effective the teams

works – teams who resolve issues also tend to deliver projects

rated themselves, to vet that the project surveys are both

that are on time and on budget, and c) teams tend to build trust

accurate and effective.

as the project goals are delivered on, so partnering evaluation

The Results

becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The WWB study team found project teams with a high “Collaboration Score” tended to deal effectively with the following core metrics for successful project delivery: • Issue Resolution (correlation of 0.942) — Teams with a high Collaboration Score have a very strong correlation to effective issue resolution. In other words teams who partner effectively tend to efficiently resolve project issues. • Budget (correlation of 0.842) — Teams with a high Collaboration Score had a strong correlation to delivering the project on budget. In other words, teams who partner effectively deliver jobs within budget — even if the budget is challenging from the outset of the job. • Schedule (correlation of 0.682) — Teams with a high Collaboration Score have a strong correlation to delivering projects on schedule. In other words, teams that effectively partner often bring projects in on time. They also found that the team tended to assess its own Safety Score accurately, which vetted the use of the surveys as an accurate project accountability tool. www.partneringinstitute.org

Source: Anderson, L., Jr. and Polkinghorn, B. (2011). ”Efficacy of Partnering on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project: Empirical Evidence of Collaborative Problem-Solving Benefits.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 3(1), 17–27.

January/February 2015 Partnering Magazine

FACILITATOR’S CORNER

Accountability Works! H

ave you ever been driving down the road when

works for them. One thing

you saw an electronic sign that gave you instant

emerged that we heard over and

feedback on your speed? What did you do? You

over. The RE’s and PM’s had a neutral project

immediately check yourself and slow down! (Yeah, I’m

facilitator prepare a monthly survey and distribute it to the

assuming you were speeding!) Then you watch to see as your

project team. The RE’s and PM’s would routinely find out

speed comes into line with the speed limit. This immediate

things that they were totally unaware of. Then they would sit

and regular feedback allows us to see where we are, and to

down with their counterpart and go over the survey to see

hold ourselves accountable for doing what we are supposed

what they needed to do to resolve the issues or to improve.

to be doing.

From this, a monthly project partnering survey offered by the

This is the concept from which the Construction ScorecardTM was born. The ability to be accountable is essential for

professional neutral facilitator became a standard practice.

developing a high trust relationship. The immediate feedback

What Gets Measured Improves

allows the team to be accountable to themselves, to each other

Is accountability important — or over rated? I want to share

and to the project.

some research that I did several years back. The study found

This was reinforced when I was facilitating the Statewide

that teams that measure their progress; make adjustments; and

Partnering Steering Committee for the California Department

hold one another accountable to live up to their commitments;

of Transportation (Caltrans) in 1999. We had the heads of

tend to improve over time.

construction from all the 12 Districts, Headquarters, FHWA

The study was based on the analysis of 13 different

and an equal number of industry CEOs on the partnering

projects, over a two-year period. Each implemented a

steering committee. In our quest to figure out what makes

monthly Construction ScorecardTM. It was a diverse group of

projects and partnering succeed, we had the opportunity to

projects, which included buildings, bridge/highway, marine,

interview the best-of-the-best RE’s and PM’s from around

rail, seismic, environmental and culture change. Projects

California. The FHWA brought in people from other parts

ranged in size from $100,000 to $142 Million. A total of 113

of the country.

monthly scorecards were analyzed. Items in the scorecard

These RE’s and PM’s were renowned for consistently bringing-in successful projects. We asked them all kinds of questions about what they do, how they do it and what 18

Partnering Magazine January/February 2015

are rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being excellent and 1 being poor. Study revealed the following findings: www.partneringinstitute.org

Scores Improved over the life of the project for 12 out of 13 projects • Scores improved as much as 1.14 points (28%) • Average improvement was ½ a point or 0.54 point (14%) • The project that went down did so after moving from a monthly to a quarterly scorecard

5 of 13 projects were in severe difficulty when the Construction Scorecard was implemented. 4 of these 5 improved so significantly that they won industry awards. TM

• Improvements were +1.13, +1.08, +0.36, +0.40 points

Individual measures/issues increased as much as 1.7 points over the life of the project. • (2.7 to 4.3 points)

There is a “halo” effect from each partnering session. Scores improved, especially for the lower scores. Projects tend to gain momentum and if that momentum is blocked the project’s results are diminished. • 2 of the 13 projects could not significantly overcome their problems and improvements were not sustained

Dream It! We’ve Got You Covered The challenges facing today’s airports are endless, yet so are the opportunities.

• Even for these two projects, scores improved over the life of the project (+0.40, +0.26) These findings show what we learned from the RE’s and PM’s back in 1999. That what gets measured gets

Parsons Brinckerhoff offers a full range of services to partner with

done and what gets measured improves the project!

airport owners to

I hope you will use your project scorecards to really

envision the future …

help your project team to thrive!

and then create it.

Sue Dyer is the President of OrgMetrics LLC and the Founder of International Partnering Institute. She has been a pioneer in partnering and has facilitated partnering on over 2500 projects and hundreds of strategic partnering sessions over the

For career opportunities and/or more information, please visit

pbworld.com

past 3 decades. You can contact Sue at SueDyer@orgmet.com. www.partneringinstitute.org

January/February 2015 Partnering Magazine

Making SFO’s Partnering Program Fly For almost two decades OrgMetrics has been providing Partnering Services for San Francisco International Airport’s renowned Partnering Program

Partnering Program Development/Facilitation • Project Partnering Facilitation • Strategic Partnering Facilitation • Facilitated Dispute Resolution • Project Scorecards