Issue 2 March/April 2015
emerging research IPI’s Meta Analysis: Part I Why Partnering?
INSIDE: page 8
page 14
Partnering Small Urban Projects
Are You Paying Too Much for Your Construction?
Wor ld -C lass I n n o v ators. Lan d m ar k Bu ild ings. I n sp ir in g Perfor m a nc e .
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 Larry Anderson, Anderson Partnering Pierre Bigras, PG&E Roddy Boggus, Parsons Brinckerhoff Pat Crosby, The Crosby Group Pete Davos, DeSilva Gates Construction Larry Eisenberg, Ovus Partners 360 Michael Ghilotti, Ghilotti Bros, Inc. Richard Grabinski, Flatiron West, Inc. Randy Iwasaki, Contra Costa Trans. Authority Jeanne Kuttel, CA Dept. of Water Resources Mark Leja, Caltrans (Retired) John Martin, San Francisco International Airport Pete Matheson, Granite Construction Geoff Neumayr, San Francisco International Airport Jim Pappas, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. Zigmund Rubel, Aditazz Ivar Satero, San Francisco International Airport 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
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Rob Reaugh, MDR
FOUNDER & CEO 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
Features
March/April 2015 IPI Meta Analysis: Part I
8
Facilitator’s Corner
Partnering—The Challenges of Small Urban Projects
10
IN THIS ISSUE
4
Executive Director’s Report IPI Funds Partnering Research...and Why It Matters to You
Why Do Some Owners Partner and Others Do Not? In Part I of IPI’s Meta Analysis study details, we explore why some owners partner and how we can help bring along those who don’t
14
Best Practices Are you paying too much for your construction? Read IPI’s newest White Paper to find
DESIGN/CREATIVE
out how to adopt partnering
Michelle Vejby Email: mvejby@msn.com
for your organization and
6
Committee Spotlight IPI’s Vertical Construction Committee helps support the adoption of Collaborative Partnering
18
In the News Introducing IPI’s new Assistant Director, Dana Paz
improve your ROI
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 2014 International Partnering Institute, all rights reserved. Subscription rates for non-members, $75 for six electronic 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
Cover photo courtesy Webcor Builders and Cupertino Electric, Inc.: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Headquarters, and San Francisco’s Greenest Office Building (to date).
March/April 2015 Partnering Magazine
3
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Rob Reaugh, MDR IPI Executive Director
IPI Funds Partnering Research—And You Should Care About It
I
n this issue, we focus on IPI’s
industry at all. The three most familiar
newest Research Report, “A Meta-
names to academics in North America
Analytic Synthesis of Partnering
are the Construction Industry Institute
Literature in the Architecture,
(for broad research initiatives),
Engineering, and Construction
TRB Foundation (for transportation
Industry” (Meta-Analysis). This is
projects), and Charles Pankow
a roundup of partnering research
Foundation (for vertical projects).
that has been conducted worldwide
Each of these will occasionally focus
since the 1980s. Our research team
research on project processes, but the
from Michigan State University (MSU)
vast majority of their limited dollars
poured over more than 160 academic
are focused on innovations in cement,
papers, journals and research reports
steel, and building techniques.
then selected the top 74 that focused
Second, while most of the current
most on the subject of construction
research is focused on building
project partnering from around the
techniques, we tend to be very slow to
world.
change them within our specifications
Some of our members may be
due to safety concerns and high levels
wondering, why does it matter that
of regulation. Over the past forty
IPI is funding research on partnering?
years, in spite of millions and millions
How in the heck can an academic team
of dollars being spent on research,
from the Midwest actually affect my
the technology of reinforced concrete,
projects in the field? They sure aren’t
which is a foundational building tool,
pushing any dirt and aren’t looking at
has not changed significantly.
my projects.
Third, according to a recent Smart
It’s a big deal for three reasons:
Market Report ”Managing Uncertainty
First, in spite of the fact that heavy
and Expectations in Building Design
highway and building construction
and Construction,” the greatest risk
alone represent roughly 5% of the
to project success is the ability for the
U.S. economy, there are a very small
designer and contractor to resolve
number of organizations sponsoring
issues together along with the owner
research and development in the
organization. According to the report,
IPI Member project teams are shaving years off of their schedule, millions from the engineers’ estimate, and decreasing total installed costs by 20-30%. 4
Partnering Magazine March/April 2015
www.partneringinstitute.org
the ability for the team to collaborate is in fact more important than even the delivery method selected to build the project. So to summarize, the construction industry has been spending the vast majority of our very limited research dollars on techniques that are very difficult and slow to change, in a relatively low-risk area (building materials). It is not the materials we use that are limiting our ability to successfully deliver public and private projects in terms of cost, quality, schedule, and safety. In fact, what is routinely determining the success or failure of the project is the project teams we assemble and their ability to work together and within the specifications. Imagine where we would be if we spent even a small portion of those dollars teaching our project teams how to collaborate and negotiate in a non-adversarial way. Imagine how much more prepared our engineering and construction management graduates would be if they arrived on the construction site with leadership training and an understanding of how to build trust and resolve their own disputes. This is why IPI must be a leader in driving innovation in partnering techniques and why we need your support for the effort. IPI’s mission is to change the culture of construction from combative to collaborative. In order to change our culture we need to convince more owners, contractors,
Dream It! We’ve Got You Covered
designers, and construction professionals that Collaborative Partnering is the best way to deliver projects. That starts with data. In two short years, IPI’s has delivered the Barriers to Partnering report and the new Meta-Analysis, which models how an owner decides whether or not they will
The challenges facing today’s airports are endless, yet so are the opportunities.
partner. Next year, we will have a study focused on how high-functioning teams actually communicate. Each year
Parsons Brinckerhoff
we plan to publish research reports to teach our members
offers a full range of
and the industry more innovative techniques that can be implemented the very next day on your projects to help create a culture of collaboration! Put simply, IPI’s investment in partnering research is a big deal. IPI Member project teams are shaving years off
services to partner with airport owners to envision the future … and then create it.
of their schedule, millions from the engineer’s estimate and decreasing total installed costs by 20-30%. So spread the word and support us in our effort to fund research and innovation related to improving collaboration on projects in the industry—the results have more financial impact on your project than nearly any other research—and you will be able to implement the recommendations on your very next project.
For career opportunities and/or more information, please visit
pbworld.com
Investing in IPI and our research program is a great business decision—I encourage you to get involved! www.partneringinstitute.org
March/April 2015 Partnering Magazine
5
COMMITTEE SPOTLIGHT
IPI Vertical Construction Committee T
he IPI Vertical Construction Committee was launched in November of 2011. The goal of this group has been to develop many of the central owner’s tools that IPI uses to
support owner organizations in the adoption of Collaborative Partnering. Comprised of owners, designers, contractors, and
the program. If your agency
construction managers from industry leading organizations,
has one high-risk project,
the Committee has been a creative engine for many of IPI’s
perhaps you can adopt
most important products. This group conceived and developed
the Level 5 IPI Partnering
the IPI Partnering Specifications, the IPI Vertical Matrix, which
Specification. Or, you can
outlines how partnering should be scaled, and has begun
use one of the four methods
developing sample legislative language for municipalities and
included in the White Paper
public entities to more easily adopt a partnering program.
to adopt partnering as a
The Vertical Committee, Chaired by Larry Eisenberg of
broader strategy to develop collaborative cultures
Ovus Partners 360 recently put the finishing touches on a
in a routine way on your projects, which will have a profound
new White Paper entitled “Are You Paying Too Much for
effect on your agency’s project outcomes.
Your Construction? Four Methods for Adopting Collaborative
For 2015, the Vertical Construction Committee’s focus is
Partnering for Public Entities.” This White Paper, featured
to support more agencies adopting a structured, scaleable
p 14, is focused on how a variety of public agencies have
approach to Collaborative Partnering by adopting the IPI
adopted construction partnering in order to improve project
Specifications and Matrix. Research by the Sacramento
outcomes. As a public entity contemplates the best way to
Regional Research Institute (SRRI), demonstrates that publicly
adopt partnering, they need to start with their objectives for
funded capital projects stimulate the local economy and produce both skilled and unskilled jobs for the labor force. By
IPI Vertical Construction Project Partnering Matrix
adopting Collaborative Partnering, agencies can really tap into
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, consider elevating your Partnering to the next higher level to ensure project success. Expected Benefits and Approximate Cost to Owner*
the collective wisdom of their construction teams to improve
Level
Project Value
Complexity
Political Significance
Relationships
Desired Level of Engagement
5
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)
Very High
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
4
Large (New design, new contracting method, or challenging Rehabilitation/ Renovation) ($25M - $250M)
3
Medium ($10M - $25M)
High Complexity (short timeline/ Probable schedule constraints, Organization image uncommon at stake materials, new supply chain, etc.
Increased Complexity
Likely, depending on the size of the client and place of importance
Partnering Elements
Very high accountability, Issues tracked and Requirements: decisions made timely, All Project Level 4 Requirements and... Momentum maintained Monthly Partnering Meetings (Design through Construction) as progress continues in Multi-Tiered Partnering (Executive - Core Team - Stakeholder) spite of issues that arise Special Task Forces for specific issue resolution Approx. $20,000/qtr
2
Small ($5M - $10M)
Moderate Complexity
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
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
1
Micro/Short Duration ($0 - $5M)
Standard Complexity
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
Requirements: Professional Neutral Facilitator (if needed) Charter Executive Sponsorship Field-Level Decision Making Including Stakeholders Dispute Resolution Ladder and DRA/DRB Facilitated Dispute Resolution
6
Partnering Magazine March/April 2015
of professionals who can quickly teach you best practices and translate emerging research so you can apply cutting experienced owners, contractors, designers, and construction professionals who can quickly help you launch your partnering program in a way that helps you improve your outcomes. Contact IPI at ED@partneringinstitute.org, or call us at
*Costs of Facilitation based on $5,000/day and $500 per scorecard Please note that Daily rates for Facilitators can vary widely
IPI Vertical Construction Project Partnering Matrix
The Vertical Construction Committee meets via teleconference once per month. They are an exciting group
edge techniques to your program. We have a number of
http://www.partneringinstitute.org/IPI_vertical_construction_partnering.html
©2014, International Partnering Institute
productivity, while they virtually eliminate the risk of claims.
Feb-14
(925) 447-9100 to get involved! 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
FACILITATOR’S CORNER
Partnering–The Challenges of Small Urban Projects In order to ensure that your project team can maximize the potential for your project, I will outline the common risks and provide some tips.
I
t is a widely held belief in our industry that small construction projects (valued at less than $5M) do not carry enough “risk” for teams to hold professionally facilitated partnering sessions. They often fear that time spent in meetings away from the jobsite is time wasted.After many years of work on projects in urban areas, I have learned that for many of these publicly-funded projects, project teams still require the full complement of partnering skills and competencies and can greatly benefit from the partnering process. In order to ensure that your project team can maximize the potential for your project, I will outline some common risks and provide some tips so you can make sure your team gets maximum benefit from your next small project partnering session. Many of the items identified below often emerge on small projects and are made worse by the lack of opportunity and flexibility to work with and through the schedule. So, what are the big challenges facing publicly funded, small budget projects in urban areas?
8
Partnering Magazine March/April 2015
www.partneringinstitute.org
Low Overhead: Small projects are rarely staffed full time by owner reps. Instead, they tend to be staffed by client and consultant representatives of various disciplines dedicated to many projects each. As a result, response times can be slow and priority may not be with this particular project.
Public’s Expectations: Like it or not, elected officials,
Varying Levels of Contractor Experience with Public Contracting: In many large cities, small contractors
Knowing that all these issues potentially threaten our small, urban projects, what will Facilitators do to help your team?
receive bid discounts and are awarded projects. New contractors often experience difficulties in a number of areas including: invoice and change order payment processing time, paperwork, IT systems, and local hiring commitments. Likewise, the public agency may not have
community associations, neighborhood groups and the publicat-large are watching. Their lives and livelihoods will likely be disrupted by your construction activities. If not respected, the press and the powers that be will hear about issues. Continuous communication throughout the team is therefore necessary.
Prior to the Partnering Session, the Facilitator can: • •
a history with the contractor—so a steep learning curve will likely have to occur.
•
Short Schedule / Minimal Float: The project’s intent is to provide or improve a critical public service. Construction projects do create disruptions and the
•
lack of float in the schedule requires an awareness of surrounding community activities.
Utility Identification / Scheduling: Unmarked utilities
During the Partnering Session, the Facilitator can: •
are a problem for any project team. For short-duration, small budget projects, they can present a critical time challenge. Make sure to locate the responsible utility representative and
•
schedule appointments early to avoid delays.
Long-Lead Items: Specially fabricated or specified
•
contract items require early procurement. For urban projects, this can often conflict with the critical path. •
Limited Budget: Small projects usually have <5% contingency and applications for budget increases involve lengthy submittal requests to the owner (who may require Board Approval). Any work stoppage may require the contractor to demobilize until determination, which hurts both the schedule and cash flow for smaller contractors.
Critical Coordination: It is common for more than one public entity to be involved in an urban project.
Conduct Pre-partnering interviews or send out a confidential survey; Draft the Issue Resolution Ladder and Organization/ Communication Diagram with the Project Leads prior to the session to save meeting time; Develop workshop materials based on intelligence gathered, covering the risks, challenges and opportunities tailored to the project’s intent; and, Develop insight on the daily community activities and become conscious of local political expectations, which may include a site visit.
• •
Explore team members’ past project experiences focusing on beneficial best practices and lessons learned that can support current project success; Review and gain approval for the Communication and Coordination Management Plan and confirmation on the Issue Resolution Ladder; Briefly review survey results, and address the specific concerns wth concrete actions, timeframes, and responsible leads. Help the team review the Critical Path Schedule from substantial completion to the present; making sure to identify milestones with related activities, deliverables, resources and coordination requirements, and as appropriate outline contingency plans and value engineering opportunities; Develop the Project Charter, the basis of which becomes the Project Scorecard; and Develop the Partnering Follow-up Plan so that the team can follow up as needed.
Good Luck—and Be Project Smart!
The public works department may deliver parks and
Jessica Romm, President of JBRomm PhD, has
rec projects, for example. This means that coordination
been working in the construction industry for
protocols, communication lines, and the issue resolution
more than 25 years. She has lead partnering on
process become essential. Furthermore, timeframes
hundreds of projects for the SF Public Utilities
for responses are even more important and adjacent
Commission, SF Public Works, SF Recreation and
construction projects in the area may need to be included.
Parks Department and the San Francisco Library.
www.partneringinstitute.org
March/April 2015 Partnering Magazine
9
EMERGING RESEARCH
A Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Partnering Literature in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry
Why Partner
A META-ANALYTIC SYNTHESIS OF PARTNERING LITERATURE IN THE ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING, AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Authors:
IPI META ANALYSIS: Part I Ever wonder why some Owners adopt Partnering—making it their way of doing business—and others do not adopt?
Sinem Mollaoglu (Korkmaz), PhD. and Anthony
In Part I of this multi-part series, we will explore the findings of the
Sparkling, MCM, of the Michigan State University
IPI Meta Analysis.
Construction Management Program In this article we will focus on The Partnered-Project Delivery
Findings: The team started with 164 partnering studies collected from across the world; then narrowed the research to 74 studies. The studies revealed a Partnering Project Delivery Framework which we highlight in this article. 1.
The study identified four types of Boundary Conditions that determine whether an owner will partner or not. If they are not currently
2.
3.
making process as they are deciding whether they will, or will not, adopt Partnering on a project. THE PARTNERED-PROJECT DELIVERY FRAMEWORK The Partnered-Project Delivery Framework is a model that emerged from the research that depicts how owners decide whether they will use partnering on a project or not. In the Framework, you can see three elements. The first are Boundary Conditions/Constraints.
partnering, they need training.
ELEMENT 1: BOUNDARY CONDITIONS (in purple)
The more partnering tools a team uses (like
There are four “Boundary Conditions/Constraints” (Conditions). If
follow-up sessions, scorecards, etc.), the
each of the boundary conditions are met, the Owner will more likely
better results they get in terms of cost, quality,
decide to use Partnering. If the boundary conditions are not met,
schedule and safety.
they will not use partnering.
Owners who develop a guiding focus (for instance, developing consistently collaborative project teams), achieve better outcomes.
10
Framework, which emerged as a model of the owner’s decision-
Partnering Magazine March/April 2015
A boundary condition is some type of barrier that the owner organization allows to get in the way of using Partnering. According to the research, there were three Program-level boundary conditions www.partneringinstitute.org
ering?
If an owner is resisting adopting Partnering, host a Collaborative Partnering Orientation Training. There they will learn the ROI of Partnering.
and one Project-level boundary condition.
Program Level Barriers: Cultural, Organizational, and Legislative — In this study, the most frequently cited boundary condition was
cultural. Examples of cultural boundary conditions are a lack of open communication and concerns that the contractor or designer will take advantage of a partnering relationship. “Rigidity in the construction team” is the most frequently cited cultural boundary condition for why teams opt not to use partnering. The second most commonly cited boundary condition was
organizational. Examples of organizational boundary conditions include the lack of an executive sponsor, lack of company-wide acceptance of a partnering initiative, or lack of clear strategic
Project Level Constraints —
benefits from the relationship.
Project and Team Related boundary conditions refer to defining characteristics of the project itself (size, scope, duration) and the
The third most commonly cited boundary condition was legislative.
project team. If, for example, a project is considered low-risk or low
Examples of Legislative boundary conditions would be stringent
budget, a team will likely not employ structured partnering. Also,
public regulations against the pursuit of improved owner-contractor
if a project manager or executive does not wish to use the process,
interactions, or political and contractual requirements.
Partnering will likely not be used.
www.partneringinstitute.org
March/April 2015 Partnering Magazine
11
EMERGING RESEARCH In summary, according to the research, if any of these conditions (cultural, organizational, legislative, or project and team related) outweigh the perceived benefits of partnering, the team will not use the process. In contrast, if the owner satisfies most or all of these criteria, the project team will select partnering. New York Avenue Bridge – 2013 IPI Partnering Project of the Year, Saphire Level
So what does this mean for my projects? If an owner or a project team is resistant to using partnering due to cultural, organizational legislative, conditions, host a Collaborative Partnering Orientation Training for them
conflict resolution, empathy, etc.) that enable teams to improve
to attend. They will learn that partnering has a return on
project outcomes. Individual Level Characteristics instead describe
investment ($1 spent on partnering = $96 savings to the
individual’s values and attributes.
project) and the essential tools for delivering partnered projects like Charters, follow-up meetings, and Dispute
Project Outcomes
Resolution Programs. This way, the process will be
Project Outcomes describes the intended outcomes of the use of
demystified and team members more effectively deliver
partnering for projects. According to the literature, quality, cost,
collaborative projects
schedule and conflict resolution are the most frequently cited objectives for the partnering process on a project.
ELEMENT II: PARTNERED PROJECT DRIVERS (in pink)
So what does this mean for my projects?
Once a team has decided to implement partnering, the three boxes
According to the research, project teams that use all of
in the pink section, describe what project teams typically do to
the partnering tools including the kick-off and follow up
develop a successful project team and to optimize the partnering
partnering sessions, development of a charter, project
process.
surveys to ensure accountability, issue resolution, teambuilding, etc., achieve better results. In order to deliver more
Drivers During Delivery
projects on time, on budget safely and with high quality,
Drivers During Delivery describes the use of various partnering tools
implement the IPI Collaborative Partnering Specification
by the project team. The greatest driver (or indicator of successful
that is appropriate to the risk level of your project.
partnering), was “Practice,” which is the use of tools including partnering workshops, development of clear team goals, and continuous monitoring (surveys). Implementing the partnering tools
ELEMENT III: ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES (in blue)
gives teams the most statistically significant improvement over any
Organizational outcomes have a longer-term focus according to
other process in project delivery. In fact, the more tools a team uses,
the literature. For project teams and individuals, the organizational
the better the partnering outcome.
outcomes include increased job satisfaction, and enhanced personal relationships.
The other, secondary drivers included “Contractual agreements (like incentives or a pain-gain share, IPD-like project) and Procurement
For Organizations, adoption of a successful partnering program
(qualifications-based or early involvement contracting strategies)
is achieved with the establishment of long-term relationships, enhanced reputation through repeat business and/or fair treatment
Team Characteristics
of project teams. In other words, by adopting partnering as
Team Characteristics describes the beneficial attributes of
a “guiding focus” an owner can gain a long-term competitive
partnering teams and members that optimize partnering once
advantage as a desirable place to work. This will improve how
it has been adopted. In the literature, Team Level and Individual
aggressively contractors and designers will bid the owner’s work
Level Characteristics were described. Team Level Characteristics
and on the aggregate will reduce claims and simultaneously
describe the Interpersonal skills (communication, non-adversarial
improve outcomes.
12
Partnering Magazine March/April 2015
www.partneringinstitute.org
So what does this mean for my program? In order adopt the appropriate level of partnering on your projects across your program, adopt the IPI Matrix and IPI Collaborative Partnering Specifications. That way, your program managers can benefit from a system developed from lessons learned on thousands of projects by IPI Committees. You can also engage your contractor community in a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee (CPSC) to learn from the builders of your projects what policies and procedures are barriers to successful project delivery. Contact IPI for guidance.
So how does this Framework Translate into Practice? The Partnered Project Delivery Framework translates into practice in three important ways: 1.
The Boundary Conditions describe whether an owner will or will not implement partnering based on its cultural, organizational, legislative or project & team level constraints. In order to help an owner overcome these constraints, invite them to attend an IPI Collaborative Partnering Orientation Training.
2.
The literature demonstrates that projects that implement all of the key partnering tools (Partnering Facilitation, follow-up
Interstate 880/State Route 92 Interchange Reconstruction Hayward, CA 2012 IPI Partnered Project of the Year, Diamond Level
workshops, project surveys, issue resolution, etc.) are much more likely to achieve the outcomes the owner and project team would like to achieve (cost, quality, schedule, scope, safety goals). So, implement the IPI Collaborative Partnering Specification at the right level for your project. 3.
The study demonstrates that programs who develop a guiding focus of developing consistently collaborative project teams, achieve better outcomes. In order to achieve this type of outcome, implement the IPI Matrix and consider assembling a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee to benefit from
to benefit from improved collaboration on their projects. Call us if
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
we can be of service.
the resulting successful projects.
feedback from the builders of your projects. So, if you are an owner who has struggled with project delivery, or a contractor who is struggling to convince an owner to attempt partnering, train your staff in partnering. If you are an owner and wish to improve your project outcomes, adopt the IPI Collaborative Partnering Specification and observe how the project team begins to gel and improve its culture as issues are resolved and claims become a thing of the past. IPI offers owner’s guides, educational tools, training, mentorship, and research to our members who wish
In Part II, we will tell you how the research demonstrates the outcomes of partnered projects and how the IPI Model has been validated by the Meta-Analysis.
www.partneringinstitute.org
To learn more about Flatiron’s innovation in partnering visit
www.flatironcorp.com March/April 2015 Partnering Magazine
13
BEST PRACTICES
IPI Product Launch: White Paper
Are You Paying Too Much for Your Construction? Every $1M spent during a construction project supports 12.4 total jobs and an additional $825,858 in local economic output. Contributed by Rob Reaugh & the IPI Vertical Construction Committee
T
he International Partnering Institute Vertical Construction Committee is pleased to announce its newest White Paper, entitled “Are You Paying too Much for Your Construction? Four Methods for Adopting Collaborative Partnering for
Public Entities.” The objective of the White Paper is to share the benefits to partnering and also share four ways that public entities have already adopted partnering programs, so you will not have to reinvent the wheel when you get started! Publicly funded construction projects are becoming increasingly complex. Each year, new federal, state, and county requirements result in higher numbers of specialty or local firms on each project. Public entities are also expected to handle larger teams, emerging environmental requirements, and increased scrutiny by taxpayers, while managing this added complexity. Furthermore, any “project issue” can quickly be turned into a headline by the press or through social media. And yet, construction remains essential to our local economies. A recent
SFPUC Building
study by the Sacramento Regional Research Institute (SRRI) found that every $1M spent during a construction project supports 12.4 total jobs and an additional $825,858 in local economic output. In other words, constructing an $18M facility would translate to roughly 221 jobs and $14M in ongoing annual economic output once the facility is built1.
14
Partnering Magazine March/April 2015
www.partneringinstitute.org
In order to ensure that our public projects are more consistently delivered on time, on budget, and without claims, IPI Members use Collaborative Partnering. This is the best way to consistently develop highly collaborative teams that are prepared to resolve any issue they face. In order to make Collaborative Partnering a norm on your projects, IPI Members have found that they need to take a “Program-wide” approach to partnering. In this White Paper, we share four ways that
There are many ways to implement Partnering for your public entity
public entities have adopted partnering, share the strengths of each and also provide tips to ensure you have a successful program launch. To get a copy of the IPI White Paper, please visit the IPI Store (http://partneringinstitute.org/shop/) to download your free copy. 1.
The Legislative Mandate — Executive
Directive by San Francisco, CA Mayor, Ed Lee
SFPUC Building
On January 1, 2013, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee signed Executive Directive 12-01 (Appendix 1), mandating that all projects performed by six major City Departments: San Francisco Public Works, San Francisco (SFO) International Airport, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco Metropolitan Transit Authority, San Francisco Port, and San Francisco Recreation & Parks, will use Partnering on every construction project larger than $100,000. San Francisco is a Chartered City and the Mayor used his authority to implement a necessary and exciting program in this fashion. San Francisco is the first City in the world to adopt a citywide approach to Partnering Construction projects across all Departments. The strengths of the Executive Directive are top-down commitment, the ability to cross train on the partnering process across several agencies and the ability to share lessons learned as the program is launched. In order to maximize on this process, have the various entities communicate frequently so the partnering program is consistent and leave some flexibility due to the differences in project complexity and size in the various departments. 2.
The Facility Owner’s Imperative — Delivering Exceptional
Projects – SFO International Airport
We believe in strong partnerships WEBCOR.COM
In 1992, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) used Strategic Partnering to build its Masterplan Program. Airport Director John L. Martin’s objective was to create an organization-wide collaborative culture. In the years to come, Partnering would support both internal Airport initiatives and the construction program. Eighteen _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 - Strategic Economic Research Stimulus Calculator: http://www.strategiceconomicresearch.org/AboutUs/StimCalcTool.pdf
www.partneringinstitute.org
March/April 2015 Partnering Magazine
15
SFO Terminal 3 BAE; 2014 IPI Partnering Award, Ruby Level (photo courtesy Gensler)
years and $4 billion in construction later,
formal facilitated Partnering for all jobs
SFO has emerged as one of the elite
larger than $10 Million and included
public entities to deliver construction
the use of DRB’s. The adoption of
projects in the U.S. and the world. The
partnering by the City of San Jose
organization has crystalized its vision
was a joint effort by members of
for delivering collaborative projects and
the public works department and a
engaging project stakeholders into a
number of contractor associations
document entitled “Delivering Exceptional
including AGC California, EUCA (now
Projects—Our Guiding Principles” (www.
United Contractors), ABC, and CEA,
sfoconstruction.com).
which represented more than 1,000 contractors throughout the state
The strengths of this Imperative are
of California.
top-down commitment, the use of performance measures, and that construction program leaders
The strengths of the grassroots model are that it is durable
learn how to develop routinely collaborative project teams. In
and that the process is widely supported before you initiate
order to make the program durable, make sure to update your
the change. In order to make sure the partnering program is
policies to reflect your collaborative project team’s behaviors,
meaningful, make sure to protect the verbiage as it is crafted
keep track of your success (to continue to justify your program to
and be strategic—once it is formally crafted into law, it will be
Boards of Review), and make your process scaleable.
difficult to change or update.
3.
Conclusions
The Internal Directive — Start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee – Ohio Department of Transportation
Remember, there are a number of ways to implement partnering for your public entity, and it is important for you to
In 2011 the Ohio Department of Transportation engaged District
take a look at the landscape in which you work and identify the
employees (Districts 1-12 and Headquarters) and the contracting
best way to initiate collaborative culture change. If you have
community (Ohio Contractors Association) in a Steering
access to key political leaders, an Executive Directive may be
Committee. By creating a Collaborative Partnering Steering
the best approach. If you are a mid-level manager and have
Committee (CPSC), an Owner agency can really tap into the
colleagues from your projects, perhaps a Grassroots Approach
collective wisdom of the companies who are in the field actually
will be appropriate. Or, if you are a program leader and would
delivering their projects. Today, they meet bi-annually to update
like to either develop an internal collaborative culture or work
goals and check in on performance measures.
externally with industry to globally optimize your organization for better project delivery, a Steering Committee may be the
The strengths of a Steering Committee are that contractors help
best approach. IPI is here to help you get partnering started.
co-create solutions for you and you can poke holes in the silos
Good Luck!
of your organization. In order for your Steering Committee to be successful, make sure to staff the program sufficiently so there is follow-through on the commitments that the Steering Committee makes. 4.
A Grassroots Model — Engaging the City Council or the Board of Supervisors – City of San Jose City Council
In October 2002, the City Council of San Jose approved a new City policy on Contract Dispute Avoidance and Resolution including Partnering and Dispute Review Boards (DRB’s). The resolution was the culmination of a focused effort to improve the contracting environment in the City of San Jose. The resolution included a new Partnering Specification requiring
16
Partnering Magazine March/April 2015
ODOT District 3; 2014 IPI Partnering Project of the Year, Ruby Level
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
IN THE NEWS
IPI Welcomes New Assistant Director O n March 23rd, IPI welcomed our new Assistant Director of Operations, Dana Paz.
mother worked various jobs
designed to improve
to help her family get ahead.
living conditions for
After I graduated from UC
Guatemala’s most vulnerable
Berkeley with a degree in
communities. After 10 years
We are so excited to have
Cultural Anthropology, I
of this work, my husband,
her bring international
returned to Guatemala to
son and I decided to come
I can’t wait to get going
experience in coalition
work and reconnect with
back to the States, and
with the organization and
building and working with
family. Shortly after, in
that’s how I ended up in
committees.
many organizations to
October of 2005, Tropical
Livermore, CA.
implement humanitarian
Storm Stan flooded much
programs in Guatemala. We
of the western highlands
IPI: What excites you about
sat down with her to ask her
near Guatemala City and
working with IPI?
a few questions about her
caused tremendous damage
background and plans for
throughout the country. I
Dana: What excites me
and enjoy camping,
working with IPI.
began working with Mercy
most about IPI is that we
backpacking, and hiking. I
Corps, a humanitarian
are working in construction,
also love to read and spend
non-profit organization that
which is one of the biggest
time with my husband Julio,
offered relief aid to victims
drivers for the economy,
who is an architect, and my
of the storm.
and we get to focus on
son, Joaquin.
IPI: Tell us about yourself. Dana: I was born in Guatemala and moved with
IPI: What do you do when you’re away from work? Dana: I love being outdoors
“working together to
my parents to Mountain
Later, I began working as
build better.” I also like
Please join us in welcoming
View, CA when I was a
a Development Officer for
that this organization
Dana to the IPI family!
year old. My father was
SHARE Guatemala, writing
operates building grassroots
a musician and now is a
grants for food security,
consensus. It is really
general contractor and my
health and education,
exciting to be here and
ADVERTISE IN
Visit www.partneringinstitute.org
18
Partnering Magazine March/April 2015
May/June 2015 Feature: Water
September/October 2015 Feature: Technology
Deadline: May 1, 2015
Deadline: August 10, 2015
July/August 2015 Feature: IPI Awards
November/December 2015 Feature: Year in Review
Deadline: June 12, 2015
Deadline: October 9, 2015
www.partneringinstitute.org
6th Annual
IPI Awards Join us for the 6th Annual 2015 IPI Awards Ceremony on Thursday May 14th at the San Francisco International Airport Aviation Museum.
At the Ceremony we will reveal the winners of the 2015 IPI Partnered Projects of the Year, the 2015 IPI Partnering Champion, and the 2015 IPI Chairman’s Award Winner • Networking and Registration 2-3pm • Ceremony 3-6pm • Networking Cocktail Hour 6-7pm Register: www.partneringinstitute.org/awards/annual-ipi-awards-ceremoney
www.partneringinstitute.org
March/April 2015 Partnering Magazine
19
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
www.orgmet.com | (925) 449-8300