Partnering Magazine January/February 2015

the ipi Partnering specificationsImplementing Partnering in Your Organization

page 8Working Together

INSIDE:page 18

Accountability Works!

Issue 1January/February 2015

www.henselp

helps.c

om

W o r l d - C l a s s I n n o v a t o r s . L a n d m a r k B u i l d i n g s .

I n s p i r i n g Pe r f o r m a n c e .

Delivering dynamic

projects through innovation and collaboration.

www.partneringinstitute.org January/February 2015 Partnering Magazine 3

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

John Martin, San Francisco International Airport

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

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/INFORMATIONInternational Partnering Institute

291 McLeod Street

Livermore, CA 94559

Phone: (925) 447-9100

Email: [email protected]

www.partneringinstitute.org

DESIGN/CREATIVE

Michelle Vejby

Email: [email protected]

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

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.

IN THIS ISSUE

4Executive Director’s ReportResolve to Collaborate More in 2015 and Beyond

8Best PracticesWorking Together: How to start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee

18Facilitator’s CornerThe ability to be accountable is essential for developing a high trust relationship and collaborative

CONTENTS

FeaturesJanuary / February 2015 The Partnering Specification

Committee SpotlightAcademic team from

Michigan State visits SFO

to look at the positive

effects of Partnering

6

Research RoundupGood partnering can indeed

be measured, as shown by a

study of the Woodrow Wilson

Bridge mega-program.

16

The IPI Partnering SpecificationGet Partnering going in your

organization by implementing the

Partnering Specifications in 2015!

12

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

4 Partnering Magazine January/February 2015 www.partneringinstitute.org

routinely achievable?

In construction, we have

learned that it takes a three-

step, culture change process

to set and deliver on our

goals. First, we co-create

goals to ensure the project

team buys in. Second, we

set up a structure to deliver

on those goals. Third, we

measure the results and

adjust as needed to make

sure the goals are achieved.

In this issue of Partnering

Happy 2015 to you!

Every January around

the world, people take

a moment to pause and set

goals for the upcoming year

in the form of resolutions...

like maybe this year I will

finally organize my desk in a

way that I don’t need to hire

a survey crew to help me find

important notes.

But how do you convert a

resolution into practice? How

do you make goals become

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S

REPORT

Resolve to Collaborate More

Magazine we dive deeply

into how Partnering helps us

with all three steps.

For setting goals and

developing a structure

around the goals, we

feature the IPI Collaborative

Partnering Model via the IPI

Matrix and IPI Specifications.

The Matrix establishes a

scalable partnering process,

based on budget and risks

for each project. The IPI

Specs actually codify the

structured approach to

partnering intended to

develop collaborative

cultures on projects in a

routine way. The Matrix and

Specs were developed by IPI

Committees as a collection

of best practices, based on

thousands of partnered

projects. In Horizontal

(engineering) construction,

we relied on Caltrans’

structured partnering

program, which provided

scalability and outstanding

processes for educating

project teams so partnering

is consistent throughout a

large, complex organization.

For Vertical construction,

we used San Francisco

International Airport’s multi-

tiered program intended

to engage stakeholders and

end-users in the process.

The net result is a scaleable

partnering process that can

be applied by projects of all

sizes and types. If a project

team faces risks (political

scrutiny, a new delivery

method, challenging brown

field construction, etc.), the

team can “Level up” and use

the next Level of the Spec,

and meet more frequently

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.

Rob Reaugh, MDR

IPI Executive Director


to ensure an outstanding

project result. The IPI Specs

are now ready to be adopted

by any owner and plugged

into your program.

In order to ensure

that the team is a) telling

the truth and b) held

accountable to the goals

they set, an important

feature of the Collaborative

Partnering Specs is that

the team use Partnering

surveys administered by

a professional neutral

Partnering Facilitator. To

borrow from Physicist

Lord Kelvin, “if you

cannot measure it, you

cannot improve it.” From

Sue Dyer, MIPI we learn

how Partnering surveys

(Scorecards) became an

industry best practice and

how teams tend to gain

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 benefi t 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

the resulting successful projects.

To learn more about Flatiron’s innovation in partnering visit

www.fl atironcorp.com

Interstate 880/State Route 92 Interchange Reconstruction

Hayward, CA

2012 IPI Partnered Project of the Year, Diamond Level

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

community, etc.

So for IPI, promoting

the IPI Matrix and the IPI

Collaborative Partnering

Specifications program is our

2015 New Year’s Resolution.

We have already had key

public agencies in the City

and County of San Francisco

and around the country adapt

the Specifications for their

respective programs. Now,

we need to identify more

owners who are ready to

take collaboration on projects

to the next level when they

adopt the IPI Specs. When

they do, they will reap the

benefits of more collaborative

cultures within their projects,

which will result in reduced

claims, improve budget

and schedule and improve

job satisfaction. In order

to change the culture of

construction we need to work

together — it benefits all of

us. Join me in this mission —

it will make for a great 2015!


Michigan State University Academic Team Visits SFO

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

an operating airfield environment and managed to shave the

schedule from 120 days to 88.

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

built by Golden Gate Constructors, a Joint Venture between

DeSilva Gates Construction (Dublin, CA) and Graniterock

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

a key contributor to the project and Parsons Brinckerhoff

(New York, NY) provided Construction Management support.

The team used the Collaborative Partnering Model including

monthly partnering sessions lead by OrgMetrics LLC

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

Stakeholder team level sessions. The project team also used

monthly Scorecards.

In order to create a highly collaborative environment and in

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

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

From December 17-20, 2014, IPI welcomed Professor

Sinem Mollaoglu (Korkmaz), Ph D. and Graduate

Student Shivam Sohani of Michigan State University

Construction Management Program to San Francisco

International Airport. The agenda for the three day visit was

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

be emerging in January 2016.

In 2015, Professor Mollauglu and Mr. Sohani will be

launching a new research project focused on how Partnering

effects team communication and levels of integration within

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

are focusing on the need for project teams to improve

integration. The methodology Dr. Mollauglu uses focuses on

how project teams actually communicate with each other. The

study begins with an analysis of the project’s communication

system along with analysis of the Partnering Session Reports

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

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 fast-

paced, 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

COMMITTEESPOTLIGHT

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


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

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!

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

Photo (above): EMAS Array

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 [email protected],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

PARTNER ING INST I TUTE .ORG


BEST PRACTICES

Working TogetherHow to start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee

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

T 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

to identify common “Barriers to collaboration on “Partnering is

a Journey—not

a destination,”

Mark Leja,

Chairman of

the Caltrans

Construction

Partnering

Steering

Committee

(2007-2014)


construction program. The joint committee will include an

equal distribution of Owner and Industry participants and

its responsibility is to set policies, overcome barriers, and

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

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

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

people together and actually make things happen. Next you will

gather senior leaders within your organization that can make

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

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

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

Step 3 Hold Your CPSC Kick-Off WorkshopThe Kick-off Workshop will establish both the initiatives the

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

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

work to identify barriers to true collaboration on projects. The

CPSC will identify the top barriers and form subcommittees

and make commitments around them. The commitments, the

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

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

Step 4 Establish Your Subcommittees, Co-Chairs, Charter, and GoalsOnce the subcommittees are formed, they will need to figure

out how to best overcome the barrier they have been assigned.

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

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

stakeholders who have influence on your barrier. Make sure

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

progress with a Charter. Your Collaborative Partnering

Facilitator (CP Facilitator) and Partnering Program Manager

(PPM) will help you drive the effort forward.

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

the committee members to have a social gathering before each

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

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

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

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


BEST PRACTICES

develop annual goals, subcommittees will report out, and the

CPSC will vet proposals.

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

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

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

the CPSC for vetting/confirmation and adoption.

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

process and associated documentation. If, for example,

the PEP recommends a change to a Specification, the PEP

should include the proposed language. It is important to also

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

is agreed to by the CPSC, the Partnering Program Manager

and Facilitator will work to develop an implantation plan,

milestones, deliverables and a schedule. The “owner” will

work with them to roll out the plan.

Step 8 Monitor and Evaluate ProgressIn order to maintain momentum, it is important to track

progress on the newly adopted PEPs and make adjustments

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

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

and practice.

Step 9 Develop Program Level Performance MeasuresYou 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 end-

users to ensure that you are measuring the right outcomes.

Also, make sure to include time during your quarterly CPSC

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

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 [email protected] 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.

OWNER’S GUIDE

Working TogetherWorking Together

How to Start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee

How to Start a Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee

Sue Dyer

We believe

in strong partnerships

WEBCOR.COM


usa.skanska.com

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

2013 NAIOP Community Enhancement Day, Seattle, WA

Gold Line Bridge, Arcadia, CA


The IPI SpecificationsAT 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

(SPECS) TO IMPROVE PROJECT DELIVERY. THIS

ARTICLE WILL QUICKLY WALK YOU THROUGH

THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THE IPI SPECS AND WILL

INTRODUCE YOU TO IPI RESOURCES THAT AID YOU

IN ADOPTING A PARTNERING PROGRAM. THE IPI

COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING SPECIFICATIONS

AND MATRICES WERE ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED

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.

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 and risks of a project and then choosing the “right” amount of Partnering for each job. Over thousands of projects, IPI Committees 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, prior relationships with the team, etc.) and choose to “Level up” to a higher Level of Partnering. The higher the level, the more partnering 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 SpecsA 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

PARTNERING SPECIFICATION

The IPI Partnering


with it. IPI members have learned that the Spec must REQUIRE Partnering to be implemented.

In the Spec the Owner clearly defines how frequently the partnering team will meet and how the contractor can include funding for partnering within the bid so all can estimate the costs based on the size and risk of each project. Now the entire team understands the level of commitment required and the owner can develop an expectation for return on investment.

Understanding the SpecThe 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 (http://partneringinstitute.org/owners-toolbox/).

Section 1 – GeneralSection 1 is the overview of the Spec. It outlines the Owner’s expectation that the prime contractor, architect, subcontractors, and owner stakeholders will all work in a collaborative fashion to deliver the project. This also highlights the key Elements included in the IPI Collaborative Partnering process including a mutually agreed, IPI Certified Independent Professional Neutral Partnering Facilitator, the development of a Partnering Charter, a joint evaluation process (project Surveys), Multi-tiered partnering

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

Section 2 – DescriptionIn 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,

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

The Goals of Partnering — central partnering objectives, including: (1) early and regular communication, (2) shared trust, (3) development and attainment of mutual goals, (4) strategies for using risk management, (5) timely communication and decision-making (6) resolving potential problems at the lowest possible level (7) following up with the partnering meetings and workshops, and (8) establishing project surveys.

The IPI Partnering

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.

In Section 3 – Partnering Implementation

In Section 3, the Collaborative Partnering Model Elements and the Charter are defined. Partnering is initiated when the team mutually selects an IPI Certified Professional Neutral Facilitator to help steer the partnering process. During the Partnering Kick-off session, the Facilitator guides the team in developing the Partnering Charter.

The Charter is specific to every construction project and memorializes all commitments the team has made. It is a living


PARTNERING SPECIFICATION

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) and other Dispute Resolution process (like Dispute Review Boards, Mediation, etc.).

Finally, the Charter includes a plan around evaluating the Facilitator, and whether the team will receive additional training in Partnering. At the end of the document, the team signs the Charter to demonstrate a personal commitment to the successful execution of the project.

Section 4 – Partnering PaymentSection 4 addresses who pays for the partnering process. Typically, IPI recommends that the owner pay for the facilitated partnering through a project change order or an allowance in the contract and pay 100% of the fee for the Professional Facilitator to remove all barriers to implementation. Historically in Horizontal (Heavy Civil) Construction, the Contractor (who self performs the majority of the work) and Owner split the fee 50/50.

Section 5 – Partnering Dispute ResolutionSection 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.

Final ThoughtsRemember, the IPI Matrix and Collaborative Partnering Specifications were developed by IPI Committees based on experience from thousands of partnered projects. When you adopt them, you can adopt the appropriate “Level” of Spec based on the size and risk profile of your project. For more guidance, make sure to consult IPI’s “On Time On Budget”, the IPI Owner’s Toolbox webpage, and be on the lookout for the IPI Collaborative Partnering Specifications Guide coming in 2015.

So, when your team is ready to jump in the Partnering pool, adopt the IPI Matrix and Spec based on the size and risk of your project and Dive In! Over the past 25 years of Partnering, most teams have gotten partnering going by just giving it a shot! Just remember that when you do, set the expectation that a kick-off session is not enough! As IPI Certified Partnering Facilitator Neal Flesner of Ventura Consulting Group has said, “Partnering is not just New Year’s Resolution—you must follow up to make it work!”

IPI Vertical Construction Project Partnering Matrix

Level Project Value Complexity Political Significance Relationships Desired Level of

Engagement

Expected Benefits and Approximate Cost to

Owner*Partnering Elements

5

Very Large/Mega(Airport Terminal, Hospital, Power

Plants, etc.)($250M - $500M+)

Highly Technical and Complex Design and

Construction

High visibility/ oversightSignificant

strategic project

New Project Relationships including: New Contractors, Sub, Agencies, Third-parties, CM, High Turnover

rate of SubsHigh Potential for conflict (strained relationship, previous litigation, or

high probability of claims)

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

4

Large(New design, new

contracting method, or challenging Rehabilitation/ Renovation)

($25M - $250M)

High Complexity (short timeline/

schedule constraints, uncommon

materials, new supply chain, etc.

Probable - Organization image

at stake

New Contractors or CM, New subs/relationships High

More timely decision-making 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-boardingSubcontractor on-boarding/off-boardingPartnering Training required

3 Medium($10M - $25M)

Increased Complexity

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

importance

Established RelationshipsNew CM, Subs, Agencies, or other

key Stakeholders

Moderate/High (seeking risk

mitigation and project efficiencies)

Increased PredictabilityReduced (zero) Claims

Improved SafetyImproved ScheduleOn or under budget


Requirements:All Project Level 2 Requirements and...Quarterly Partnering MeetingsMonthly ScorecardsExecutive and Core Team PartneringTraining - when team agrees

2 Small($5M - $10M)

Moderate Complexity

Unlikely, unless in a place of

importance

Established RelationshipsNew Subs

New AgenciesNew Stakeholders

Moderate (seeking risk

mitigation and project efficiencies)


Improved SafetyImproved ScheduleOn or under budget


Requirements:All Project Level 1 Requirements and...Professional Neutral Facilitator for Kick-off (minimum)2 Project Scorecards (minimum)Charter Executive SponsorshipField-Level Decision MakingIncluding StakeholdersDispute Resolution Ladder and DRBFacilitated Dispute Resolution

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

Standard Complexity

Unlikely, unless in a place of

importance

Established RelationshipsNew Subs

New AgenciesNew Stakeholders

Low to ModerateFor small budget and/or short time

line projects, Partnering can reduce risk and focus on project

efficiencies


Improved SafetyImproved ScheduleOn or under budgetApprox. $1,000/qtr

Requirements:Professional Neutral Facilitator (if needed)Charter Executive SponsorshipField-Level Decision MakingIncluding StakeholdersDispute Resolution Ladder and DRA/DRBFacilitated Dispute Resolution

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

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

©2014, International Partnering Institute Feb-14

Example Potential Risk FactorsEvery 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.

IPI Vertical Construction Project Partnering Matrix

WINNER OF THE 2014 CALTRANS EXCELLENCE IN PARTNERING AWARD“BEST IN CLASS” FOR PROJECTS GREATER THAN $50 MILLION

Highway 65 Lincoln Bypass ProjectCaltrans 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 S11555 Dublin Boulevard, P.O. Box 2909, Dublin, California 94568-2909 925-829-9220

w w w . d e s i l v a g a t e s . c o m

Contractors License No. 704195A


RESEARCH ROUNDUP

In February, 2011, Larry Anderson, MIPI, and Brian

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

of Partnering on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project:

Empirical Evidence of Collaborative Problem-Solving

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

partnering research for two reasons: First, the study validated

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

Second, the study demonstrated that effectively partnered

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

schedule and safety.

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

mega-program comprised of 19 smaller projects, which ranged

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

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

teams’ commitments.

The WWB study yielded many interesting results, but the

key highlights are that a) project surveys are an effective

and important tool for partnered projects and b) partnering

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

(effectively partnered projects), had a very strong correlation

to effective Issue Resolution and Budget Compliance, and had

a somewhat strong correlation to Schedule Compliance and

effective Community Relationships. The WWB study also vetted

the utility of project surveys by demonstrating that project

teams accurately assessed their own Safety Scores (in terms of

OSHA Case Rate).

The SetupIt has historically been challenging to measure Partnering, in part

because every project has unique challenges and also because

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

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

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

complexity were partnered and measured in a similar way.

So, although there were nuanced differences between how

project teams communicated, set goals and evaluated their own

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

memorializing an issue resolution process and project-specific

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

each attended regular partnering workshops.

No other Partnering study has been able to look so deeply

into the project survey process, evaluate how effectively

teams are rating themselves, and estimate whether effective

partnering allows teams to resolve issues, and maintain project

budgets and schedule as intended.

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

more than 6,000 surveys and attended 354 partnering workshops

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

Anderson and Polkinghorn and they found a number of key

correlations supporting the use of Partnering as an important and

essential practice for projects, both large and small.

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

What Gets Measured — Truly Gets Done


The MeasurementDuring the 8 year mega-program, the survey questions were

developed by each of the 19 project teams based on Charter

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

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

all surveys were conducted via a password-protected project

website. Six measurements (Communication, Cooperation, Issue

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

19 projects. Material clearance (18), environmental compliance

(16), quality (12), budget (8), and other key goals were used on

multiple projects.

In order to measure effective partnering, Anderson and

Polkinghorn created a project “Collaboration Score”. The

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

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

measures taken on each project: Teamwork, Cooperation, and

Communication. The “Collaboration Score” was than correlated

with key measurements across all projects including schedule

compliance, budget compliance, safety and others. Correlations

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

correlation, a number near zero in either direction means that

there is a low correlation.

They used statistical correlations to determine whether (a)

Partnering was doing what it was intended to do (improve

team issue resolution, conflict prevention, and schedule and

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

rated themselves, to vet that the project surveys are both

accurate and effective.

The ResultsThe 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.

• Safety (correlation of Partnering Safety Score vs. OSHA

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

a medium correlation to a low reportable OSHA Case Rate.

In other words, teams self-rate their safety performance

pretty effectively.

Anderson and Polkinghorn also found that:

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

Collaboration Score — in other words, the level of

collaboration on a project was not predetermined by how

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

one might assume that regional contractors may have

more interest in developing collaboration, there was little

difference in national vs. regional contractor’s ability to

effectively partner with the owner.

To summarize, Anderson and Polkinghorn found that good

partnering can be measured by the team’s satisfaction with

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

to resolve issues. They also found that the effective partnering

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

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

So the take home message is to use monthly project

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

consistently reliable and accurate responses b) partnering

works – teams who resolve issues also tend to deliver projects

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

as the project goals are delivered on, so partnering evaluation

becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

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.


FACILITATOR’S CORNER

Have you ever been driving down the road when

you saw an electronic sign that gave you instant

feedback on your speed? What did you do? You

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

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

speed comes into line with the speed limit. This immediate

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

hold ourselves accountable for doing what we are supposed

to be doing.

This is the concept from which the Construction ScorecardTM

was born. The ability to be accountable is essential for

developing a high trust relationship. The immediate feedback

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

and to the project.

This was reinforced when I was facilitating the Statewide

Partnering Steering Committee for the California Department

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

construction from all the 12 Districts, Headquarters, FHWA

and an equal number of industry CEOs on the partnering

steering committee. In our quest to figure out what makes

projects and partnering succeed, we had the opportunity to

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

California. The FHWA brought in people from other parts

of the country.

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

works for them. One thing

emerged that we heard over and

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

facilitator prepare a monthly survey and distribute it to the

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

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

down with their counterpart and go over the survey to see

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

From this, a monthly project partnering survey offered by the

professional neutral facilitator became a standard practice.

What Gets Measured ImprovesIs accountability important — or over rated? I want to share

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

that teams that measure their progress; make adjustments; and

hold one another accountable to live up to their commitments;

tend to improve over time.

The study was based on the analysis of 13 different

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

monthly Construction ScorecardTM. It was a diverse group of

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

rail, seismic, environmental and culture change. Projects

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

monthly scorecards were analyzed. Items in the scorecard

are rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being excellent and 1

being poor.

Study revealed the following findings:

Accountability Works!


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 ScorecardTM was implemented. 4 of these 5 improved so significantly that they won industry awards.

• 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

• 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

done and what gets measured improves the project!

I hope you will use your project scorecards to really

help your project team to thrive!

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

past 3 decades. You can contact Sue at

[email protected].

For career opportunities and/or more information, please visit

pbwor ld .com

Dream It!We’ve Got You Covered

The challenges facing

today’s airports are endless,

yet so are the opportunities.

Parsons Brinckerhoff

offers a full range of

services to partner with

airport owners to

envision the future …

and then create it.

Making SFO’sPartnering Program FlyFor almost two decades OrgMetrics has been providing Partnering Services for San Francisco International Airport’srenowned Partnering Program

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

www.orgmet.com | (925) 449-8300

Documents

Partnering Magazine January/February 2015