Construction productivity solutions are readily available that integrate planning, procurement, and project delivery to consistently enable on-time, on-budget, quality outcomes with full financial visibility and compliance.
“Procore”, “Revit”, (insert any tech) are not solutions. They don’t embed robust programmatic frameworks and current verifiable granular local market task data.
Learn more…
Improving public sector facilities life-cycle management is critical to the economy, the environment, and to our safety.
www.4bt.us
There are multiple learnings from JOC Program Audits (see audit results)
Common goals, metrics, and the adoption of a programmatic versus project centric approach can drive significant improvements in efficiency and compliance. A common set of terms and definitions is also extremely important to collaborative information sharing, without this, inclusive of a locally researched granular unit price book, “apples to apples” comparisons and mutual understanding on an early and ongoing basis are virtually impossible.
Owner leadership and commitment to an open JOC Program based upon robust principles is the ONLY path to measurable gains in efficiency and quality. There is no “secret sauce” and everyone must use the same (or similar) tools and techniques and deliver the same (or similar) results. Owners must strive to assure everyone acknowledges this reality, and mandate that all participants openly share data and lessons learned.
The current levels of lack of trust pervasive among project teams, poorly defined conditions of satisfaction or goals from owners can easily be changed.
Open JOC Programs and associated tools and services can…
LEAN Job Order Contracting is an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) project delivery method that integrates internal and external planning, procurement, and project delivery teams. Via the LEAN 4BT OpenJOC(TM) Framework multiple projects can be completed over the life of one long-term contract on-time, on-budget and in a fully compliant manner with full cost visibility and cost control. The 4BT OpenJOC Solution is the best value choice for public sector owners who complete a high volume of routine repair, renovation, maintenance, and new build construction projects each year.
www.4bt.us
LEAN Construction FACTS
Transition from a project-based approach to a programmatic approach is critical in achieving measurable improvements in quality, cost, and overall sustainability.
Mitigate labor and materials waste!
Focus on people, process, and information!
Measurable productivity improvement is impossible without understanding individuals, organizations, and their needs.
Simple Introduction to LEAN Construction https://www.4bt.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Lean_and_Sustainable_Construction_A_Syst-1.pdf
Kanban-a focus on just-in-time delivery and team load-balancing
LastPlanner System – Collaborative, commitment-centric pull planning and look-ahead planning support by regular team meetings, percentage completion, and variance analysis.
Productive construction and collaboration go hand in hand.
The traits of collaboration include:
Based upon the above, why would anyone be surprised by the lack of productivity and rampant economic and environmental waste endemic to public sector facilities repair, renovation, maintenance, and new builds?
The good news is that any public sector entity can reduce waste and save 30%-40% of its resources through the implementation of robust processes that integrate planning, procurement, and project delivery across internal and external teams.
Planning, Procurement, and Project Delivery System Performance is CRITICAL to Improving Productivity.
Learn more?
References:
AIA. (2008). AIA Document C195 – 2008, Standard Form Single Purpose Entity Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery, Exhibit D (Work Plan). US: AIA.
AIA California Council. (2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A Working Definition (2nd ed.). US.
AIA National, & AIA California Council. (2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide (1st ed.). U.S.: AIA.
Ashcraft, H. W. (2011). IPD Teams: Creation, Organization and Management. San Francisco: Hanson Bridgett LLP.
Association for Project Management. (2000). APM Body of Knowledge. In M. Dixon (Ed.). UK: APM.
Baiden, B. K., & Price, A. D. F. (2011). The effect of integration on project delivery team effectiveness. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 129-136. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.016
Barlish, K. (2011). How To Measure the Benefits of BIM: A Case Study Approach. (Master of Science), Arizona State University, Arizona, US.
Barrett, R. (2013). Liberating the Corporate Soul: Taylor & Francis.
Brennan, M. D. (2011). Integrated Project Delivery: A Normative Model For Value Creation In Complex Military Medical Projects. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, US.
Brewer, W., & Mendelson, M. I. (2003). Methodology and Metrics for Assessing Team Effectiveness. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 19, 777-787.
Chelson, D. E. (2010). The Effects of Building Information Modeling on Construction Site Productivity. University of Maryland,
College Park, US
Cleves, J. A., & Dal Gallo, L. (2012). Integrated Project Delivery: The Game Changer. Paper presented at the American Bar Association Meeting: Advanced Project Delivery: Improving the Odds of Success.
Coates, P., Arayici, Y., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2010). The key performance indicators of the BIM implementation process. Paper presented at the The International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nothingham, UK.
ConsensusDOCS. (2007). ConsensusDOCS 300: Standard Tri-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). US.
Constructing Excellence. (2006). UK Construction Industry: Key Performance Indicators. UK.
Cox, R., Issa, R., & Ahrens, D. (2003). Management’s Perception of Key Performance Indicators for Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(2), 142-151. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(142)
Department of Treasury and Finance. (2006). Project Alliancing: Practitioner’s Guide. Australia: Department of Treasury and Finance.
El Asmar, M. (2012). Modeling and Benchmarking Performance for the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) System. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Wisconsin – Madison, US.
El Asmar, M., Hanna, A., & Loh, W. (2013). Quantifying Performance for the Integrated Project Delivery System as Compared to Established Delivery Systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 04013012. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000744
Ertel, D., Weiss, J., & Visioni, L. J. (2001). Managing Alliance Relationships: A Cross Industry Study of How to Build and Manage Successful Alliances. Massachusetts, US: Vantage Partners.
Franz, B., & Leicht, R. (2012). Initiating IPD Concepts on Campus Facilities with a “Collaboration Addendum” Construction Research Congress 2012 (pp. 61-70): American Society of Civil Engineers.
Freeman, J., Weil, S. A., & Hess, K. P. (2006). Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing Knowledge in Command and Control Organizations, NY.
Galloway, P. D. (2013). Managing Gigaprojects: Advice from Those Who’ve Been There, Done that. US: ASCE.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-91.
ATTN: Public Sector Facilities Professionals – Rethink, Reshape, Rebuild Repair, Renovation, and Maintenace Practices to improve productivity, quality, and efficiency,
Traditional facilities planning, procurement, and project delivery simply doesn’t work. Economic and environmental waste are the norm due to the lack of integrated robust processes and teams.
Managing uncertainty and risk on an early and ongoing basis is the only way to measurably improve repair, renovation, maintenance, and new build outcomes on a consistent basis. This can ONLY be accomplished by the following core activities:
Collaboration in construction is not a choice if your goals are consistent quality, on time and on budget repair, renovation, maintenance, and new build outcomes.
Integrated planning, procurement, and project delivery terms leveraging a robust process and common data, including granular, locally researched labor, material, labor, and equipment, organized via expanding CSI Masterformat as also requisite components.
Learn more…
www.4bt.us
LEAN Capital Project Delivery (LEAN CPD) creates a dynamic, collaborative environment in which repair, renovation, maintenance, and new builds requirements can consistently be achieved in a quality manner, on-time, on-budget, and in full compliance.
Any public sector real property owner can realize the above and reduce waste by 30% to 40% with a bit of leadership and commitment.
Proven solutions have existed for decades and are far from complex. All the tools and support services needed are readily available to enable initial deployment within three to six months.
What is LEAN CPD?
LEAN collaborative project delivery is a programmatic framework in which planning, procurement, and project delivery teams, information, and workflows are integrated on an early and ongoing basis. Owners, designers, and builders are a cohesive team as are their associate planning, procurement, and project delivery professionals.
While each “project” may be unique, the associated planning, procurement, and project delivery framework is the same. This ensures early and ongoing sharing of information within a common data environment (CDE). While much has been written about BIM, digital twins, and similar technologies. LEAN CPD addresses the fundamental problems associated with the AECOO sector (architecture, engineering, construction, owner, operator/operations), which are 1.) lack of financial and technical visibility within a commonly understood verifiable format, 2.) lack of well-defined and mutually beneficial outcomes, 3.) failure to fully leverage the knowledge of those acutally doing the work, and 4.) lack of a robust process framework.
If your organization is interested in lowering costs, improving efficiency, and building long term, mutually beneficial relationships, let’s talk.
LEAN Capital Project Delivery increases efficiency and reduces facilities management costs via the implementation of a robust programmatic process to all repair, renovation, maintenance, and new build requirements,
Learning about Job Order Contracting?
What is Job Order Contracting (JOC)? JOC is both a procurement mechanism and a project delivery method. When designed and managed properly, JOC integrates planning, procurement, and project delivery processes and teams under a consistent programmatic workflow. In terms of procurement JOC is bid indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract between a facility owner and a professional JOC construction contractor. JOC contracts typically have a one year durations, and up to four (4) option years. Extensions are not generally allowed or advisable
When should JOC be used? JOC is proven to expedite construction work on existing or new facilities and other types of physical infrastructure for repair, renovation. remodeling, maintenance, and new construction requiring minimum design.
What tools are required for JOC? A locally researched unit price book (UPB) is core element. The use of national average cost data (with or without location factors) or assemblies do not provide adequate cost visibility or cost transparency. A unit prices book of 40,000 line items is sufficient for any JOC Program.
Do I need to hire a JOC consultant? Absolutely not. All the tools and services needed to design, implement, and manage an efficient and compliant JOC Program can readily be procured.
Do I need to procure a set of technical specifications from a JOC products and services provider? No. If you have an existing set of technical specifications that a current and appropriate, these can be referenced in the JOC. The UPB will automatically reflect commercial tasks for your area. If new tasks, or technical specifications are required, they can easily be added.
What is a typical JOC workflow?
What training and support is needed? All training and support is available from service-oriented, client-centric JOC vendors to assure owners and contractors can operate efficiently. These vendors have a goal to assure owners can manage their own JOC Programs in a fully compliant and effective manner. Training is multi-formant and multi-level and is available generally includes training videos and “Quick Start Guides” that can be accessed through various technologies.
Can owners create independent estimates? Yes. Owners can develop detailed cost proposals by line item and prepare an independent estimate. The owner creates an independent estimate in the same manner that a JOC contractor does, by creating a detailed scope of work and selecting line items and quantities. The agency can then automatically compare the estimate to the contractor estimate via the JOC software and focus on variances.
via 4bt.us
Learning about Job Order Contracting is the first step towards efficient facilities repair, renovation, maintenance, and new builds.
Request the full white paper…
Here’s a concise list of requirements for a successful JOC Program.
via 4bt.us
accuracy: ac·cu·ra·cy – the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard. – Oxford Languages
Information accuracy, however, is a term I can live with, as it is a function of the correctness of input data.
The reality of construction cost management is that it is impossible without visibility. Over 95% of ALL repair, renovation, maintenance, and new build projects lack cost visibility.
And don’t get me started in the need for a focus on overall process regarding planning, procurement, and project delivery.
JOC Programs that make sense deliver comprehensive, integrated robust processes, professional services, and enabling software solutions to enable public sector facilities management teams to more efficient mange building and other structure in concert with mission goals.
Robust programmatic process for all repair, renovation, maintenance, and new construction projects.
4BT (Four BT LLC) JOC and physical asset life-cycle management expertise and technical capabilities are embodied in its 4BT-PEP JOC Knowledge management system. The 4BT-PEP JOC Solutions enable clients to improve operational performance, optimize investments and drive measurable cost savings.
Enabling enterprise cloud technology
Data driven planning, procurement, and project delivery is supported by a locally researched granular line-item construction task database that is updated quarterly, without the use of location factoring or economic multipliers.
Data driven decision-making
Implementing a roadmap to LEAN Construction and efficient planning, procurement, and project delivery is neither complex nor costly. The benefits of the change include consistent delivery of 90%+ of all repair, renovation, maintenance, and new build projects on-time, on-budget, and per detailed specifications.
The question is why aren’t LEAN construction solutions being implemented to any significant effect, and why are there so many being used improperly?
What is LEAN? Lean is a philosophy that began with Henry Ford (not Toyota) in “recent” history and existed long before that. In basic terms LEAN involves mutual respect among all participants and stakeholders, information sharing, and a goal of continuous improvement. (See-Origins of LEAN – LEAN Enterprise Institute)
LEAN Construction Solutions – LEAN construction solutions have existed for over three decades and have now evolved to include all the requisite tools and services for rapid implementation. LEAN solutions can be tailored to organizational needs; however, core elements remain constant. These core elements are mandatory to achieve maximum benefit.
Core Elements of LEAN Construction
Looking for locally researched current detailed construction cost data? www.4bt.us
“Although there are instances of rigorous process thinking in manufacturing all the way back to the Arsenal in Venice in the 1450s, the first person to truly integrate an entire production process was Henry Ford. At Highland Park, MI, in 1913 he married consistently interchangeable parts with standard work and moving conveyance to create what he called flow production. The public grasped this in the dramatic form of the moving assembly line, but from the standpoint of the manufacturing engineer the breakthroughs went much further.”
The True Origin of LEAN begins with Henry Ford with respect to flow production and leveraging the knowledge of those doing the work.
LEAN did NOT originate in JAPAN or with TPS.
Forget, 5S, Gemba, Jidoka, Kaizen, Kanban, Muda, Poka-Yoke, PCDA, Takt time, Value Stream Mapping,
The core principles of LEAN originated with Henry Ford.
Ford lined up fabrication steps in process sequence wherever possible using special-purpose machines and go/no-go gauges to fabricate and assemble the components going into the vehicle within a few minutes and deliver perfectly fitting components directly to line-side. This was a truly revolutionary break from the shop practices of the American System that consisted of general-purpose machines grouped by process, which made parts that eventually found their way into finished products after a good bit of tinkering (fitting) in subassembly and final assembly. (Source: LEAN Enterprise Institute (https://www.lean.org/explore-lean/a-brief-history-of-lean/)Lean Construction solutions are now readily available.
The following JOC Program policy considerations are provided for general knowledge.
I. Purpose
The use of Job Order Contracting (JOC), when properly designed and managed, provides a means for an organization to optimize the planning, procurement, and project delivery of repair, renovation, maintenance, and new construction of buildings and other forms of physical infrastructure. It is important to check any statutes or regulations in your specific area to determine if any limitations exist on the use of this method.
II. Scope
A JOC Program that observes current best management practices with incorporate the following elements.
III. Contractor Prequalification and Selection
All JOC contractors must be evaluated by submitting a coefficient and their company experience and then selected as an awardee for a specific JOC Program. Prospective contractors submit a coefficient (generally 1.20-1.40) for designated categories of work, such as 1.) normal work hours, 2.) work done outside of normal work hours, and 3.) non-prepriced line items. A potential contractor must submit information that provides a reasonable expectation that it can meet JOC Program performance requirements as well as have required licensing and/or certifications.
IV. JOC Project Review and Selection
The owner JOC Program Administrator will evaluate each potential JOC project to determine if it is in the best interest of the owner to use the JOC method for the project. Each individual job order will not be approved until the designated responsible, knowledgeable person other than the project manager has independently reviewed o the JOC contractor’s cost proposal. The independent review shall ensure that the contractor’s proposal aligns appropriately with the owner’s scope of work, that the listed tasks are appropriate at a line item level and the quantities are accurate. I
V. JOC Staff
The owner JOC Program Administrator is responsible for ensuring that all personnel associated with the JOC program are professionally trained regarding the JOC procedures and use of the JOC knowledge-based management software; and for ensuring that JOC staff represent the owner’s best interest, consistent with ethics and regulatory responsibilities.
The JOC Program Administrator shall ensure that all internal and external JOC Program participants receive adequate training to properly administer the JOC contracts and that project managers are sufficiently involved in administering the job orders and assure JOC training materials for ongoing use are suitable for all levels and types of personnel and updated as needed. Owner personal administrating or directly participating in the approval of JOC projects/work orders hall not be affiliated with any entity that provides services related to the project, such as design, construction, or engineering support services, or JOC consulting services.
Additional Information
via www.4bt.us
Construction Cost Management = Transparency and Credibility
Is your construction cost estimate…
CORE PRINCIPLES
FACTORS IMPACTING AN ESTIMATE
via Four BT, LLC – www.4bt.us – LEAN Construction Solutions – Locally researched detailed unit price cost data, Integrated planning, procurement, and project delivery, Job Order Contracting tools and services.
Construction Cost Estimating Factors 2022 – Construction Cost Estimating Factors that determine validity, transparency, and level of cost management capability.
CORE PRINCIPLES
FACTORS IMPACTING AN ESTIMATE
via Four BT, LLC – www.4bt.us – LEAN Construction Solutions – Locally researched detailed unit price cost data, Integrated planning, procurement, and project delivery, Job Order Contracting tools and services.
Optimizing repair, renovation, maintenance, and new construction outcomes isn’t difficult. It does, however, require a robust LEAN Job Order Contracting programmatic framework. Real property owner leadership and commitment to fundamental change from traditional methods are the first steps. Owner support and a programmatic LEAN JOC Program combine to integrate internal and external planning, procurement, and project delivery teams to enable the consistent delivery of quality repair, renovation, maintenance, and new builds on-time and on-budget, without excessive administrative cost or burden.
Status Quo
Public sector repair, renovation, maintenance, and new construction projects continue their legacy of failure due to two primary reasons:
1. Lack of owner leadership and support, and
2. Continued use of archaic and antagonistic planning, procurement, and project delivery methods.
Most poor outcomes can be traced to one or both of these primary failure points.
Change Management
All the tools and support services needed to assure significant improvement are readily available. Proper implementation of a programmatic approach to each project maximizes internal and external team collaboration, via shared workflows, information, and technology. This approach enables knowledge of those doing the work to be leveraged, as well as the necessary oversight to significantly improve outcomes.
A LEAN JOC Program delivers…
Robust LEAN Job Order Contracting improves construction productivity, compliance, and overall satisfaction while reducing cost time.
via Four BT, LLC, the AEC industry’s innovative integrated project delivery, detailed locally researched construction cost data, and SAAS technology solutions provider. Integrating powerful, proven project planning, procurement, and execution methods to help guide organizations to achieve accelerated improvement of their facilities repair, renovation, and construction outcomes. We focus upon supporting a collaborative culture and client-specific programs centered upon delivering customer value, driven by proven LEAN processes, actionable data, enabling cloud technology, ongoing training, and continuous improvement
Effective construction cost estimating must be done at a detailed line-item level using local market data.
Learn more?
There is only one sole source of truth for construction cost estimating, locally researched detailed line-item unit price data and associated quantities. Any owner, designer, builder who is not observing this fact has limited cost visibility and is likely to be “off” by 30%-40% or more.
Most federal government agencies incorrectly cost estimate, including the GSA, as they don’t understand this basic fact and do not have robust, organization-wide cost estimating practices.
It’s beyond time for improved leadership, competence, and accountability.
References:
GAO-19-57 – FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT Agencies Could Benefit from Additional Information on Leading Practices
GAO-21-215 – CAPITAL FUND PROPOSAL Upfront Funding Could Benefit Some Projects, but Other Potential Effects Not Clearly Identified
GAO/GGD-00-172R Study on Facility Design Reviews – Federal Facilities Council’s Report on the Role of Facility Design Reviews in Facilities Construction
GAO-19-157SP – Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas
GAO-22-104481 – DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE DOD Should Better Manage Risks Posed by Deferred Facility Maintenance
GAO-21-596 – FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT Additional Direction in Government-Wide Guidance Could Enhance Natural Disaster Resilience
Optimizing Construction, Repair, Renovation, and New Build Outcomes requires a robust programmatic process that is consistently applied and continuously improved.
Let’s start with what methods will NOT WORK if used on their own…
Now let’s talk about what will work. A process is needed that integrates internal and external teams on an early and ongoing basis throughout the Planning, Procurement, and Project Delivery phases and beyond.
Construction program management processes and technology must be connected with real-time data (locally researched unit price cost data) and workflows in order to be efficient and successful and keep project teams on the same page. The siloed approach just doesn’t cut it anymore.
A process, with associated workflows and tools, that…
Currently only two programmatic processes enable all the above items LEAN IPD and LEAN JOC.
What’s needed for LEAN IPD or LEAN JOC?
Via Four BT, LLC – Integrated Construction Planning, Procurement, and Project Delivery Solutions
www.4bt.us
While we hear about integrated project delivery (IPD), alternative project delivery, and job order contracting, are they truly fully developed processes with supporting tools and services …integrated LEAN construction planning, procurement, and project delivery for owners and design-builders requires internal and external teams to collaborate appropriately through the project lifecycle.
Consistent, significant improvements in productivity, quality, cost reduction, and delivery times can only be achieved by “checking all the following boxes”:
[ ] Owner leadership and commitment to change
[ ] Collaborative organizational culture
[ ] A robust program-based framework that includes LEAN processes and workflows
[ ] Mandatory initial and ongoing training for ALL participants and stakeholders
[ ] A common data environment (shared glossary of terms and definitions, locally researched detailed unit price cost data
[ ] An execution guide and supporting technology as part of the multi-party agreement
[ ] Shared focus upon mutually beneficial outcomes and continuous improvement
[ ] Quantitative metrics
[ ] Performance-based reward system
The above provides a foundation to allow a real property owner and their design-builders to efficiently manage their ongoing repair, renovation, sustainability, maintenance, and new build projects.
www.4bt.us – Integrated LEAN construction planning, procurement, and project delivery solutions
How a company assesses and plans for climate-related risks may have a significant impact on its future financial performance and investors’ return on their investment in the company. (SEC 17 CFR 210, 229, 232, 239, and 249)
“ESG- Using Environmental, Social and Governance factors to evaluate companies and countries on how far advanced they are with sustainability. Once enough data has been acquired on these three metrics, they can be integrated into the investment process when deciding what equities or bonds to buy.”
ISO14064 Boundaries
GHG/SEC Reporting
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposal to require that public companies disclose climate-related information. 17 CFR 210, 229, 232, 239, and 249, RIN 3235-AM87
Public organizations will be required to provide climate-related information in their registration statements and annual reports, including information about climate-related risks that are likely to have a material impact on its business, results of operations, or financial condition. The required information about climate-related risks would also include disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions, which have become a commonly used metric to assess exposure to risk. In addition, under the proposed rules, certain climate-related financial metrics would be required in audited financial statements.
Additionally, GHGRP (codified at 40 CFR Part 98) requires reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) data and other relevant information from large GHG emission sources, fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and CO2 injection sites in the United States. This data is used by organizations to track and compare facilities’ greenhouse gas emissions, identify opportunities to cut pollution, minimize wasted energy, and save money. States, cities, and other communities can use EPA’s greenhouse gas data to find high-emitting facilities in their area, compare emissions between similar facilities, and develop common-sense climate policies.
Base year GHG inventory is step one and determines your facilities carbon footprint, Step 2 is Reducing Carbon Footprint, Step 3 = Offset.
How to reduce the carbon footprint of a building?
Reduction possibilities
National averages and ‘ad hoc’ processes won’t work
A locally researched, detailed unit price cost database and an associated LEAN, integrated planning, procurement, and project delivery process are both critical to reducing the carbon footprint of facilities and other built infrastructure.
Conclusion
The journey towards efficient life-cycle management of the built environment, carbon literacy, and LEAN process is not easy.
The challenge for organizations is developing appropriate leadership and commitment. Collaboration and integration of internal and external teams, and shared information that is transparent from cost and technical perspectives are all fundamental requirements.
Change is difficult for everyone. It’s critical to understand the risks and opportunities, and to establish a long-term commitment
“Greenwashing” is a huge problem. “LEED certification” is not sufficient to meet GHG requirements or other regulations (current and pending). LEED is NOT a standard, it’s a rating system.
via Four BT, LLC – Integrated LEAN Facilities Planning, Procurement, and Project Delivery Solutions
4BT OpenJOC / 4BT OpenBUILD – The integrated LEAN construction planning, procurement, and project delivery solution deployed as a cloud SaaS platform, and complete with full support services.
Enterprise Management capability for Mutiple Programs, Contracts, Projects, Proposal/Bid, Workorders, Contractor, Subcontractors, and Forms/Documents. management. Complete with locally detailed line-item unit price construction cost data BIM integration.
Valid construction cost information has a sound basis in logic or fact, reasonable, cogent, well-grounded, justifiable, and appropriate to the end in view.
The “end in view” for any real property owner and their design-build partners is a well communicated, detailed scope of work, early and ongoing collaboration, and a mutually beneficial outcome.
Robust management of construction project information is central to the consistent achievement of best value outcomes. The foundation of this information is a locally researched detailed unit price database, complete with labor, material, and equipment granularity.
Add local construction cost data insights into your facilities repair, renovation, maintenance, and new build planning, procurement, and project delivery activities, and gain 30%-40% greater cost visibility.
Most real property owners lack the ability to measure a project to determine if it’s successful or not. At the end of the day, you need to have data to measure the success of any facilities project. It’s important going into any project to really understand the scope of work at a detailed level from both cost and technical perspectives. Locally researched, detailed line time cost data and associated quantities is the only true baseline from costs and performance can be measured.
A major cause of failed projects is the lack of valid information throughout their lifecycle. This can now be changed for everyone… owners, designers, builders, and oversight groups.
Consistent delivery of quality repair, renovation, maintenance, and new build projects on time and on budget is possible using an integrated planning, procurement, and project delivery solution.
Robust construction planning, procurement, and project delivery solutions are suitable for facilities as well as horizontal physical infrastructure repair, renovation, maintenance, sustainability, and new build projects. Traditional project delivery modes have shown to repeatedly fail to deliver value to owners, designers, and end users, building users, and the general community.
Shared profit and risk and jointly developed project goals and values are keystones for team alignment for any project.
Research has readily demonstrated significant improvements are possible in the overall project delivery process from a cost, schedule, and quality perspective, as well as improved inter and intraorganizational relationships.
Achieving and Maintaining Excellence Requires – Collaboration, Team Alignment and Tracking, Accountability, Clarity of Goals, Problem Solving, Fiscal Transparency, Robust Process, Common/Shared Data Environment, Levelling Up Team Knowledge
The ultimate benefit provided by integrated construction planning, procurement, and project delivery solution is significantly improved life-cycle total cost of ownership asset management.
Learn more about…
Choosing IPD & Lean
Team Selection
Developing Contract
Developing Parties
Champions
Decision Structure
Clarity of Goals
Resources & Facilitation
Lean
Team Alignment
Collaboration
Team Culture
Budget and Schedule
Building Outcomes
References:
• Abdirad, H., & Dossick, C. S. (2019). 12 Restructuration of architectural
practice in integrated project delivery (IPD): Two case studies.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(1), 104–
117. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2018-0196
• Cheng, R., & Johnson, A. (2016). Motivation and Means: How and Why
IPD and Lean Lead to Success [Report]. Lean Construction Institute and
Integrated Project Delivery Alliance.
http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/198897
• Choi, J., Yun, S., Leite, F., & Mulva, S. P. (2019). 36 Team Integration and
Owner Satisfaction: Comparing Integrated Project Delivery with
Construction Management at Risk in Health Care Projects. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 35(1), 05018014.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000654
• Collins, W., & Parrish, K. (2014). The Need for Integrated Project Delivery
in the Public Sector. 719–728.
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413517.074
• Ibrahim, M. W., Hanna, A., & Kievet, D. (2020). 32 Quantitative
Comparison of Project Performance between Project Delivery Systems.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 36(6), 04020082.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000837
• Kent, D. C., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010). Understanding Construction
Industry Experience and Attitudes toward Integrated Project Delivery.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 815–825.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000188
• Ling, F. Y. Y., Teo, P. X., Li, S., Zhang, Z., & Ma, Q. (2020). 4 Adoption of
Integrated Project Delivery Practices for Superior Project Performance.
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and
Construction, 12(4), 05020014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-
4170.000042
The 2 primary factors impacting construction outcomes in the public sector are,
#1 Owner leadership, commitment, and competence, and
#2 Construction delivery method.
Most of us are aware of the rampant, economic, and environmental waste endemic to public sector facilities repair, renovation, maintenance, and new construction.
Virtually nothing has been done to address the fundamental cause.
All the tools and services required to ensure that over 90% of projects are delivered in a quality manner, on time and on budget, however, major barriers have prevented their adoption.
The “system” is broken. The traditional practice of design, bid, build has proven antagonistic, costly, and unsustainable. Nonetheless it remains the norm. Integrated project delivery and LEAN job order contracting have proven capable of significant gains in productivity and associated cost savings. Both enable cost visibility, transparency, and management, while also developing the capabilities of all involved participants (owners, designers, builders).
Proper implementation and management of these superior project delivery methods requires fundamental change in the working environment. The associated change management process is nontrivial and requires leadership, commitment, and competence on the part of public sector owners. Therin lies the rub. Current real public sector property owners simply don’t have awareness of the issues or how to solve them. Furthermore, there is a pervasive lack of accountability and oversight.
The characteristics of strategic collaboration and efficient construction project delivery are discussed below.
Organizations that provide leadership and commitment to collaborative environments are rare. Those that do share the following characteristics which are present from original signing of a multi-party agreement, through implementation and ongoing management (Crowley & Karim, 1995; CII, 1989). Communication and knowledge exchanges and growth are enabled by an underlying common programmatic process for every project and activity that eases knowledge transfers and is dependent upon strength of relationships between individuals and the type of knowledge exchanged (Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Hansen, 1999).
The benefits of strategic collaboration vs. traditional construction planning, procurement, and project delivery are well documented and partially listed below (Chan et al., 2004; Black et al., 2000; Grajek et al., 2000; Gransberg et al., 1999).
All the tools and support services are readily available to enable strategic collaboration and efficient delivery of any type or size of repair, renovation, maintenance, or new build activity. The only true barrier is owner leadership and commitment.
REFERENCES
Abudayyeh, O. (1994). Partnering: a team building approach to quality construction
management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 10(6), 26-29.
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G., & Fitzgerald, E. (2000). A survey of supply chain collaboration and
management in the UK construction industry. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 6(3), 159-168.
Alderman, N., & Ivory, C. (2007). Partnering in major contracts: Paradox and metaphor.
International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 386-393.
Anderson, L., & Polkinghorn, B. (2011). Efficacy of Partnering on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge
Project: Empirical Evidence of Collaborative Problem-Solving Benefits. Journal of Legal
Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 3(1), 17-27.
Adnan, H., Shamsuddin, S. M., Supardi, A., & Ahmad, N. (2012). Conflict prevention in
partnering projects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 772-781.
Aggus, S. R., & Hiscocks, E. J. S. (2007). Coventry Framework Partnership. Proceedings of the
ICE-Municipal Engineer, 160(1), 37-44.
Anvuur, A. M., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2007). Conceptual model of partnering and alliancing.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(3), 225-234.
Army Corps of Engineers. (2010). “Partnering: A Tool for USACE, Engineering,
Construction, and Operations,” IWR Pamphlet 91-ADR-P-4.
Associated General Contractors of America, “Partnering: A Concept for Success,” Washington,
D.C. AGC Publication #1205, September 1991.
Back, W. E., & Sanders, S. R. (1996). Partnering in a unit price environment. Project
Management Institute.
Badenfelt, U. (2010). I trust you, I trust you not: a longitudinal study of control mechanisms in
incentive contracts. Construction Management and Economics, 28(3), 301-310.
Barlow, J. (2000). Innovation and learning in complex offshore construction projects. Research
Policy, 29(7–8), 973-989.
Barnes, M. (2000, August). Civil engineering management in the Industrial Revolution. In
Proceedings of the ICE-Civil Engineering (Vol. 138, No. 3, pp. 135-144). Thomas Telford.
Bates, G. D. (1996). Feature: I Don’t Believe in Change Just for the Sake of Change. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 12(3), 20-24.
Bates, G. D. (1996). Garden of managerial delights. Journal of Management in Engineering, 7.
Bates, G. D. (1996). What Project Partnering Is and Is Not. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 12(1), 10-10.
Bayliss, R., Cheung, S. O., Suen, H. C., & Wong, S. P. (2004). Effective partnering tools in
construction: a case study on MTRC TKE contract 604 in Hong Kong. International
Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 253-263.
Beach, R., Webster, M., & Campbell, K. M. (2005). An evaluation of partnership development in
the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 23(8), 611-621.
Bennett, J., & Peace, S. (Eds.). (2006). Partnering in the construction industry: A code of practice
for strategic collaborative working. Routledge.
Bemelmans, J., Voordijk, H., & Vos, B. (2012). Supplier-contractor collaboration in the
construction industry – A taxonomic approach to the literature of the 2000-2009 decade.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(4), 342-368.
Black, C., Akintoye, A., & Fitzgerald, E. (2000). An analysis of success factors and benefits of
partnering in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 18(6), 423-
Boddy, D., & Macbeth, D. (2000). Prescriptions for managing change: a survey of their effects in
projects to implement collaborative working between organisations. International
Journal of Project Management, 18(5), 297-306.
Bower, D. J., Crabtree, E., & Keogh, W. (1997). Rhetorics and realities in new product
development in the subsea oil industry. International Journal of Project Management,
15(6), 345-350.
Brennan, R. (1997). Buyer/Supplier Partnering in British Industry: The Automotive and
Telecommunications Sectors. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(8), 759-775.
Bresnen, M. (2007). Deconstructing partnering in project-based organisation: Seven pillars,
seven paradoxes and seven deadly sins. International Journal of Project Management,
25(4), 365-374.
Bresnen, M. (2009). Living the dream? Understanding partnering as emergent practice.
Construction Management and Economics, 27(10), 923-933.
Bresnen, M. (2010). Keeping it real? Constituting partnering through boundary objects.
Construction Management and Economics, 28(6), 615-628.
Bresnen M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2002). Social practices and the
management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project
Management, 21, 157-166.
Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2000). Building partnerships: case studies of client–contractor
collaboration in the UK construction industry. Construction Management & Economics,
18(7), 819-832.
Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2000). Motivation, commitment and the use of incentives in
partnerships and alliances. Construction Management & Economics, 18(5), 587-598.
Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2000). Partnering in construction: a critical review of issues,
problems and dilemmas. Construction Management & Economics, 18(2), 229-237.
Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2002). The engineering or evolution of co-operation? A tale of two
partnering projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 497-505.
Brooke, K. L., & Litwin, G. H. (1997). Mobilizing the partnering process. Journal of Management
in Engineering, 13(4), 42-48.
Bubshait, A. A. (2001). Partnering: An Innovative and Effective Project Organization Concept.
Cost Engineering, 43(4), 32-37.
Bygballe, L. E., Jahre, M., & Sward, A. (2010). Partnering relationships in construction: A
literature review. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 16(4), 239-253.
Carr, F. (1999). Partnering in construction: A practical guide to project success. Aba Professional
Education.
Cathcart, A. (2003). Channel Tunnel Rail Link: a contract partnership. In Proceedings of the ICECivil Engineering (Vol. 156, No. 5, pp. 41-44). Thomas Telford.
Chan, A. P. C., Chan, D. W. M., Chiang, Y. H., Tang, B. S., Chan, E. H. W., & Ho, K. S. K. (2004).
Exploring critical success factors for partnering in construction projects. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management-Asce, 130(2), 188-198.
Chan, A. P., Chan, D. W., Fan, L. C., Lam, P. T., & Yeung, J. F. (2006). Partnering for construction
excellence—A reality or myth?. Building and environment, 41(12), 1924-1933.
Chan, A. P., Chan, D. W., Fan, L. C., Lam, P. T., & Yeung, J. F. (2008). Achieving partnering
success through an incentive agreement: lessons learned from an underground railway
extension project in Hong Kong. Journal of Management in Engineering, 24(3), 128-137.
Chan, A. P. C., Chan, D. W. M., & Ho, K. S. K. (2003). An empirical study of the benefits of
construction partnering in Hong Kong. Construction Management & Economics, 21(5),
523-533.
Chan, A. P., Chan, D. W., & Ho, K. S. (2003). Partnering in construction: critical study of
problems for implementation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 19(3), 126-135.
Chau Kwong, W. (1997). The ranking of construction management journals. Construction
Management & Economics, 15(4), 387-398.
Cheng, E. W., & Li, H. (2004). Development of a practical model of partnering for construction
projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(6), 790-798.
Chen, T. T., & Kao, C. H. (2010). A study of identifying success variables for construction
partnering via SEM framework. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 18(5), 629-
Chen, W. T., & Chen, T. T. (2007). Critical success factors for construction partnering in Taiwan.
International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 475-484.
Cheng, E. W., & Li, H. (2002). Construction partnering process and associated critical success
factors: quantitative investigation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(4), 194-202.
Cheng, E. W., & Li, H. (2007). Application of ANP in process models: An example of strategic
partnering. Building and Environment, 42(1), 278-287.
Cheng, E., Li, H., Drew, D., & Yeung, N. (2001). Infrastructure of Partnering for Construction
Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(4), 229-237.
Cheng, E. W. L., Li, H., & Love, P. E. D. (2000). Establishment of critical success factors for
construction partnering. Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(2), 84-92.
Cheng, E., Li, H., Love, P., & Irani, Z. (2004). Strategic alliances: a model for establishing long
term commitment to inter-organizational relations in construction. Building and
Environment, 39(4), 459-468.
Cheung, S. O., Ng, T. S., Wong, S. P., & Suen, H. C. (2003). Behavioral aspects in construction
partnering. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5), 333-343.
Cheung, S. O., Suen, H. C., & Cheung, K. K. (2003). An automated partnering monitoring
system—Partnering Temperature Index. Automation in Construction, 12(3), 331-345.
Cheung, S. O., Yiu, T. W., & Chiu, O. K. (2009). The aggressive–cooperative drivers of
construction contracting. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 727-735.
Chinowsky P.S., Diekmann, J., O’Brien, J. (2010). Project Organizations as Social Networks.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), 452-458.
Chinowsky P., Diekmann, J., & Galotti, V. (2008). Social network model of construction. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(10), 804-812.
Cho, K., Hyun, C., Koo, K., & Hong, T. (2009). Partnering process model for public-sector fasttrack design-build projects in Korea. Journal of management in engineering, 26(1), 19-29.
Conley, M. A., & Gregory, R. A. (1999). Partnering on small construction projects. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 125(5), 320-324.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1989). Meeting the Challenges of the Future. Special
Publication – Interim Report, Partnering Task Force Construction Industry Institute,The
University of Texas at Austin, August 1989.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1991). In Search of Partnering Excellence. Special
Publication 17-1, Partnering Task Force Construction Industry Institute,The University of
Texas at Austin, July 1991.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1996). Partnering II-a Model for Excellence. Special
Publication 17-1, Partnering Task Force Construction Industry Institute,The University of
Texas at Austin, July 1991.
Cook, E. L., & Hancher, D. E. (1990). Partnering: contracting for the future. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 6(4), 431-446.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis
and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
Cowan, C., Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (1992). Project partnering. Project Management Institute.
Crane, A. (2001). Local authorities achieve best value through partnering and demonstration. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer (Vol. 145, No. 3, pp.
203-208).
Crane, T. G., Felder, J. P., Thompson, P. J., Thompson, M. G., & Sanders, S. R. (1997). Partnering
process model. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13(3), 57-63.
Crane, T. G., Felder, J. P., Thompson, P. J., Thompson, M. G., & Sanders, S. R. (1999). Partnering
measures. Journal of Management in Engineering, 15(2), 37-42.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches-3/E.
Crowley, L. G., & Karim, M. A. (1995). Conceptual model of partnering. Journal of Management
in Engineering, 11(5), 33-39.
Cunningham, L. S., & Pomfret, M. A. (2007). Partnering contracts in practice at Blackpool, UK. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Municipal engineer (Vol. 160, No. 1, pp.
17-21). Institution of Civil Engineers.
Davis, P., & Love, P. (2011). Alliance contracting: adding value through relationship
development. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 18(5), 444-461.
DeVilbiss, C. E., & Leonard, P. (2000). Partnering is the foundation of a learning organization.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(4), 47-57.
Dietrich, P., Eskerod, P., Dalcher, D., & Sandhawalia, B. (2010). The dynamics of collaboration in
multipartner projects. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 59-78.
Di Marco, M., & Taylor, J. (2011). The impact of cultural boundary spanners on global project
network performance. The Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(1), 27-39.
Doloi, H. (2009). Relational partnerships: the importance of communication, trust and
confidence and joint risk management in achieving project success. Construction
Management and Economics, 27(11), 1099-1109.
Doloi, H. (2012). Empirical analysis of traditional contracting and relationship agreements for
procuring partners in construction projects. Journal of Management in Engineering,
29(3), 224-235.
Drexler Jr., J., & Larson, E. (2000). Partnering: Why Project Owner-Contractor Relationships
Change. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(4), 293-297.
Edmonds, M., & Hogan, M. (2000, March). Millennium Coastal Park: Llanelli Land Bridges. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Municipal engineer (Vol. 139, No. 1, pp. 21-26).
Ellison, S. D., & Miller, D. W. (1995). Beyond ADR: working toward synergistic strategic
partnership. Journal of Management in Engineering, 11(6), 44-54.
Eom, C. S., Yun, S. H., & Paek, J. H. (2008). Subcontractor evaluation and management
framework for strategic partnering. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 134(11), 842-851.
Eriksson, P. E. (2008). Procurement effects on coopetition in client-contractor relationships.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(2), 103-111.
Eriksson, P. E. (2010). Partnering: what is it, when should it be used, and how should it be
implemented?. Construction Management & Economics, 28(9), 905-917.
Eriksson, P. E., Atkin, B., & Nilsson, T. (2009). Overcoming barriers to partnering through
cooperative procurement procedures. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 16(6), 598-611.
Eriksson, P. E., & Laan, A. (2007). Procurement effects on trust and control in client-contractor
relationships. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(4), 387-399.
Eriksson, P. E., & Nilsson, T. (2008). Partnering the construction of a Swedish pharmaceutical
plant: case study. Journal of Management in Engineering, 24(4), 227-233.
Eriksson, P. E., Nilsson, T., & Atkin, B. (2008). Client perceptions of barriers to partnering.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15(6), 527-539.
Eriksson, P. E., & Pesämaa, O. (2007). Modelling procurement effects on cooperation.
Construction Management and Economics, 25(8), 893-901.
Errasti, A., Beach, R., Oyarbide, A., & Santos, J. (2007). A process for developing partnerships
with subcontractors in the construction industry: an empirical study. International
Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 250-256.
Fong P.S-W., & Chu L. (2006). Exploratory study of knowledge sharing in contracting companies:
A sociotechnical perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
132(9), 928-939.
Fortune, C., & Setiawan, S. (2005). Partnering practice and the delivery of construction projects
for housing associations in the UK. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 12(2), 181-193.
Gadde, L. E., & Dubois, A. (2010). Partnering in the construction industry—Problems and
opportunities. Journal of Purchasing and Supply management, 16(4), 254-263.
Gardiner, P. D., & Simmons, J. E. L. (1998). Conflict in small-and medium-sized projects: Case of
partnering to the rescue. Journal of Management in Engineering, 14(1), 35-40.
Gellatly, G. M., Burtwistle, P., & Baldwin, A. N. (2000, August). Groupware—the key to
successful partnering: a case study. In Proceedings of the ICE-Civil Engineering (Vol. 138,
No. 3, pp. 119-123). Thomas Telford.
Glagola, C. R., & Sheedy, W. M. (2002). Partnering on defense contracts. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 128(2), 127-138.
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational researcher,
5(10), 3-8.
Gottlieb, S., & Haugbolle, K. (2013). Contradictions and collaboration: partnering in-between
systems of production, values and interests. Construction Management and Economics,
31(2), 119-134
Grajek, K. M., Gibson, G. E., & Tucker, R. L. (2000). Partnered project performance in Texas
Department of Transportation. Journal of infrastructure systems, 6(2), 73-79.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Gransberg, D. D., Reynolds, H. L., Boyd, J., & Gokdogan, G. (1998). Evaluation of the TxDOT
partnering plus program (No. TX-97/0-1729-S,).
Gransberg, D. D., Dillon, W. D., Reynolds, L., & Boyd, J. (1999). Quantitative analysis of
partnered project performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and ManagementAsce, 125(3), 161-166.
Gullick, D., Cairns, R., & Pearson-Kirk, D. (2007). Application of partnering principles to a
framework contract. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Municipal
engineer (Vol. 160, No. 3, pp. 127-133). Institution of Civil Engineers.
Hagedoorn, J. (1996). Trends and Patterns in Strategic Technology Partnering Since the early
Seventies. [Article]. Review of Industrial Organization, 11(5), 601-616.
Hansen, M. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge
across Organizations Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.
Harback, H. F., Basham, D. L., & Buhts, R. E. (1994). Partnering paradigm. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 10(1), 23-27.
Hartmann, A., & Bresnen, M. (2011). The emergence of partnering in construction practice: an
activity theory perspective. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(1), 41-52.
Hartshorne, D. C., & Cadman, P. (1999). Storm flood relief tank-Westbourne Avenue, Rhyl.
Proceedings of the ICE-Municipal Engineer, 133(2), 77-82.
Harwood, K., & Follett, B. (2007). Warwickshire–Arup partnership: the first five years.
Proceedings of the ICE-Municipal Engineer, 160(1), 45-53.
Hitt, M. A., Tihanyi, L., Miller, T., & Connelly, B. (2006). International diversification:
Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 32(6), 831-867.
Hong, Y. M., Chan, D. W. M., Chan, A. P. C., & Yeung, J. F. Y. (2012). Critical Analysis of
Partnering Research Trend in Construction Journals. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 28(2), 82-95.
Hughes, D., Williams, T., & Ren, Z. (2012). Is incentivisation significant in ensuring successful
partnered projects?. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(3), 306-319.
Hughes, D., Williams, T., & Ren, Z. (2012). Differing perspectives on collaboration in
construction. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 12(3), 355-368.
Humphreys, P., Matthews, J., & Kumaraswamy, M. (2003). Pre-construction project partnering:
from adversarial to collaborative relationships. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 8(2), 166-178.
Ingirige, B., & Sexton, M. (2006). Alliances in construction: investigating initiatives and barriers
for long-term collaboration. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(5), 521-535.
Javernick-Will, A. (2011). Knowledge-sharing connections across geographical boundaries in
global intra-firm networks. The Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(4), 239-253.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Chen, H. G. (2001). The relative influence of IS project implementation
policies and project leadership on eventual outcomes. Project Management Journal, 32(3), 49-55.
Johnson, T. R., Feng, P., Sitzabee, W., & Jernigan, M. (2012). Federal acquisition regulation
applied to alliancing contract practices. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 139(5), 480-487.
Jones, K., & Kaluarachchi, Y. (2007). Operational factors affecting strategic partnering in UK
social housing. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(4), 334-345.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530.
Kadefors, A. (2004). Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. International Journal of
Project Management, 22(3), 175-182.
Kadefors, A., Björlingson, E., & Karlsson, A. (2007). Procuring service innovations: contractor
selection for partnering projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 375-385.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 8-18.
Kaluarachchi, Y. D., & Jones, K. (2007). Monitoring of a strategic partnering process: the
Amphion experience. Construction Management and Economics, 25(10), 1053-1061.
Katzenbach, C., and Smith, D., (1993). The wisdom of teams. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Keil, J. (2007). How partnering benefits the construction process. Pipeline & Gas Journal, 234(12), 59-61.
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: a meta-analytic
review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of
Marketing, 69(2), 24-41.
Kirca, A. H., & Yaprak, A. (2010). The use of meta-analysis in international business research: Its
current status and suggestions for better practice. International Business Review, 19(3), 306-314.
Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
Kumaraswamy, M. M., & Matthews, J. D. (2000). Improved subcontractor selection employing
partnering principles. Journal of management in engineering, 16(3), 47-57.
Kwan, A. Y., & Ofori, G. (2001). Chinese culture and successful implementation of partnering in
Singapore’s construction industry. Construction Management & Economics, 19(6), 619- 632.
Laan, A., Noorderhaven, N., Voordijk, H., & Dewulf, G. (2011). Building trust in construction
partnering projects: an exploratory case-study. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(2), 98-108.
Lahdenperä, P. (2012). Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project
partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Construction Management
and Economics, 30(1), 57-79.
Lai, I. K., & Lam, F. K. (2010). Perception of various performance criteria by stakeholders in the
construction sector in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 28(4), 377-391.
Lambert, D. M., Emmelhainz, M. A., & Gardner, J. T. (1996). So you think you want a partner? Marketing Management, 5(2), 24.
Larson, E. (1995). Project partnering: results of study of 280 construction projects. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 11(2), 30-35.
Larson, E. (1997). Partnering on construction projects: a study of the relationship between
partnering activities and project success. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions
on, 44(2), 188-195.
Larson, E. W., & Drexler, J. A. (1997). Barriers to project partnering: Report from the firing line.
Project Management Institute.
Lau, E., & Rowlinson, S. (2009). Interpersonal trust and inter‐firm trust in construction projects.
Construction Management and Economics, 27(6), 539-554.
Lazar, F. D. (1997). Partnering-new benefits from peering inside the black box. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 13(6), 75-83.
Lazar, F. D. (2000). Project partnering: improving the likelihood of win/win outcomes. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 16(2), 71-83.
Le-Hoai, L., Dai Lee, Y., & Son, J. J. (2010). Partnering in construction: Investigation of
problematic issues for implementation in Vietnam. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 14(5), 731-741.
Lehtola, M. M., van der Molen, H. F., Lappalainen, J., Hoonakker, P. L., Hsiao, H., Haslam, R. A., & Verbeek, J. H. (2008). The effectiveness of interventions for preventing injuries in the construction industry: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(1), 77-85.
Li, H., Cheng, E. W., & Love, P. E. (2000). Partnering research in construction. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 7(1), 76-92.
Li, H., Cheng, E. W., Love, P. E., & Irani, Z. (2001). Co-operative benchmarking: a tool for
partnering excellence in construction. International Journal of Project Management,
19(3), 171-179.
Ling, F. Y. Y., Ong, S. Y., Ke, Y., Wang, S., & Zou, P. (2014). Drivers and barriers to adopting
relational contracting practices in public projects: comparative study of Beijing and
Sydney. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 275-285.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical Meta Analysis. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 49.
Loraine, R. K. (1993). Project specific partnering. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 1(1), 5-16.
Losada, M. (1999). The complex dynamics of high performance teams. Mathematical and
Computer Modelling 30(9-10), 197-192.
Love, S. (1997). Subcontractor partnering: I’ll believe it when I see it. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13(5), 29-31.
Lu, S., & Yan, H. (2007). An empirical study on incentives of strategic partnering in China: Views
from construction companies. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 241-249.
Lu, S., & Yan, H. (2007). A model for evaluating the applicability of partnering in construction.
International Journal of Project Management, 25(2), 164-170.
Manley, K. (2002). Partnering and alliancing on road projects in Australia and internationally.
Road and Transport Research: a journal of Australian and New Zealand research and practice, 11(3), 46-60.
Mason, J. R. (2007). The views and experiences of specialist contractors on partnering in the UK.
Construction Management and Economics, 25(5), 519-527.
Maturana, S., Alarcón, L. F., Gazmuri, P., & Vrsalovic, M. (2007). On-site subcontractor evaluation method based on lean principles and partnering practices. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 23(2), 67-74.
Mazouz, B., Facal, J., & Viola, J.-M. (2008). Public-private partnership: Elements for a project based management typology. Project Management Journal, 39(2), 98-110.
Miles, R. S. (1996). Twenty-first century partnering and the role of ADR. Journal of Management in Engineering, 12(3), 45 55.
Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Sparkling, A., Thomas, S. (2013). An Inquiry to Move an Under-utilized Best Practice Forward: Barriers to Partnering in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry. Project Management Journal – (Paper under review)
Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Swarup, L., & Riley, D. (2013). Delivering Sustainable, High-Performance Buildings: Influence of Project Delivery Methods on Integration and Project Outcomes.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 29(1), 71-78.
Moore, C. C., Mosley, D. C., & Slagle, M. (1992). Partnering: guidelines for win-win project
management. Project Management Institute.
Mosey, D. (2009). Early Contractor Involvement–An Overview. Early Contractor Involvement in
Building Procurement: Contracts, Partnering and Project Management, 6-21.
Mentzer, J. T., Min, S., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2000). The Nature of Interfirm Partnering in Supply
Chain Management. Journal of Retailing, 76(4), 549.
Meng, X. (2012). The effect of relationship management on project performance in
construction. International Journal of Project management, 30(2), 188-198.
Naoum, S. (2003). An overview into the concept of partnering. International Journal of project
Management, 21(1), 71-76.
Nielsen, D. (1996). Feature: Partnering for Performance. Journal of Management in Engineering,
12(3), 17-19.
Ning, Y., & Ling, F. Y. Y. (2013). Comparative study of drivers of and barriers to relational
transactions faced by public clients, private contractors and consultants in public projects. Habitat International, 40, 91-99.
Ng, S. T., Rose, T. M., Mak, M., & Chen, S. E. (2002). Problematic issues associated with project
partnering — the contractor perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 20(6), 437-449.
Olds, B. M., Moskal, B. M., & Miller, R. L. (2005). Assessment in Engineering Education:
Evolution, Approaches and Future Collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 13-25.
Orr, J. (2012). The Ruby Bay bypass–the project that pushed the boundaries. Proceedings of the
ICE-Municipal Engineer, 165(4), 215-218.
Packham, G., Thomas, B., & Miller, C. (2003). Partnering in the house building sector: a
subcontractor’s view. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5), 327-332.
Pena-Mora, F., & Harpoth, N. (2001). Effective partnering in innovative procured multicultural project. Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(1), 2-13.
Pesämaa, O., Eriksson, P. E., & Hair, J. F. (2009). Validating a model of cooperative procurement
in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6), 552-559.
Phua, F. T. (2006). When is construction partnering likely to happen? An empirical examination
of the role of institutional norms. Construction Management and economics, 24(6), 615-624.
Phillips, S., Martin, J., Dainty, A., & Price, A. (2008). Analysis of the quality attributes used in establishing best value tenders in the UK social housing sector. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 15(4), 307-320.
Polkinghorn, B., La Chance, R., & La Chance, H. (2006). An analysis of the Maryland Department
of Transportation State Highway Administration’s partnering program and process.
Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration. (Internal report to MDSHA).
Pocock, J. B., Hyun, C. T., Liu, L. Y., & Kim, M. K. (1996). Relationship between project interaction and performance indicators. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(2), 165-176.
Puddicombe, M. S. (1997). Designers and contractors: impediments to integration. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(3), 245-252.
Radziszewska-Zielina, E. (2011). Fuzzy control of partnering relations of a construction enterprise. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 17(1), 5-15.
Rankin, J., Jameson, P., & Yarwood, N. (2007). NEC X12 at the heart of Worcestershire Highways. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer (Vol. 160, No. 1, pp. 31-36).
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2004). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(3), 554-554.
Rogge, D., Griffith, A., & Hutchins, W. (2002). Improving the effectiveness of partnering (No. FHWA-OR-RD-03-09).
Romancik, D. J. (1995). Partnership toward improvement. Project Management Institute.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Issues in summarizing the first 345 studies of interpersonal expectancy effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(3), 410-415.
Saunders, K., & Mosey, D. (2005). PPC 2000: Association of consultant architects standard form of project partnering contract. Lean construction journal, 2(1), 62-66.
Schmader, K. J. (1994). Partnered project performance in the US naval facilities engineering
command. Texas University at Austin.
Shek-Pui Wong, P., & Cheung, S. O. (2004). Trust in construction partnering: views from parties of the partnering dance. International Journal of Project Management, 22(6), 437-446.
Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns. Management Science, 51(5). 756-770.
Smith, A., & Culp, G. (2000). Continuous partnering helps ensure project success. Journal/American Water Works Association, 92(11), 74-81.
Smith, J., & Wohlstetter, P. (2006). Understanding the different faces of partnering: a typology of public-private partnerships. School Leadership & Management, 26(3), 249-268.
Solis, F., Sinfield, J.V., & Abraham, D.M. (2013). Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(4), 379-392.
Stephens, M., & Thomas, D. (2001). Partnership: a marriage made in Kent. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Municipal engineer (Vol. 145, No. 3, pp. 219-226).
Swan, W., & Khalfan, M. M. (2007). Mutual objective setting for partnering projects in the public sector. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(2), 119-130.
Tabish, S. Z. S., & Jha, K. N. (2011). Identification and evaluation of success factors for public construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 29(8), 809-823.
Tang, W., Duffield, C. F., & Young, D. M. (2006). Partnering mechanism in construction: an empirical study on the Chinese construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(3), 217-229.
Tang, W., Qiang, M., Duffield, C. F., Young, D. M., & Lu, Y. (2009). Enhancing total quality management by partnering in construction. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, 135(4), 129-141.
Tang, L., Shen, Q., & Cheng, E. W. (2010). A review of studies on Public–Private Partnership projects in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 683-694.
Thomas, S. (2013). A Collaborative and Team-Oriented Approach to Construction Project Delivery: Barriers to Partnering in the United States. (Unpublished Masters Plan B Report). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Thomas, S. R., Tucker, R. L., & Kelly, W. R. (1999). Compass: An assessment tool for improving project team communications. Project Management Institute.
Thompson, P. J., & Sanders, S. R. (1998). Peer-reviewed paper: Partnering continuum. Journal of Management in Engineering, 14(5), 73-78.
Tuchman, J. (2011). Collaborative Group Envisions Repository for Best Practices. ENR: Engineering News-Record, 267(15), 15.
Turner, J. H., Pearce, S., Fenton, M. J., & Sims, B. (2007). Effective partnering—remediating the former Avenue coking works. Proceedings of the ICE-Municipal Engineer, 160(3), 117- 126.U.S.
Voyton, V., & Siddiqi, K. (2004). Partnering: Tool for construction claims reduction. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 10(1), 2-4.
Weston, D. C. (1992). An analysis of project performance for partnering projects in the US Army Corps of Engineers. Texas University at Austin.
Weston, D. C., & Gibson Jr, G. E. (1993). Partnering-project performance in US Army Corps of Engineers. Journal of Management in Engineering, 9(4), 410-425.
Wood, G. D., & Ellis, R. C. (2005). Main contractor experiences of partnering relationships on UK construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 23(3), 317-325.
Wood, G., McDermott, P., & Swan, W. (2002). The ethical benefits of trust‐based partnering: the example of the construction industry. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(1), 4- 13.
Wong, A. (1997). Partnering in construction industry: Hong Kong context. Total Quality
Management, 8(2-3), 324-327.
Wong, P. S. P., & Cheung, S. O. (2005). Structural equation model of trust and partnering success. Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(2), 70-80.
Wong, P. S., Cheung, S. O., & Ho, P. K. (2005). Contractor as trust initiator in construction partnering—Prisoner’s dilemma perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(10), 1045-1053.
Yeomans, S. G., Bouchlaghem, N. M., & El-Hamalawi, A. (2006). An evaluation of current collaborative prototyping practices within the AEC industry. Automation in Construction, 15(2), 139-149.
Yeung, J. F., Chan, A. P., & Chan, D. W. (2008). Establishing quantitative indicators for measuring the partnering performance of construction projects in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 26(3), 277-301.
Yeung, J. F., Chan, A. P., & Chan, D. W. (2009). A computerized model for measuring and benchmarking the partnering performance of construction projects. Automation in Construction, 18(8), 1099-1113.
Yeung, J., Chan, A., & Chan, D. (2012). Defining relational contracting from the Wittgenstein family-resemblance philosophy. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 225-239.
Yeung, J. F., Chan, A. P., Chan, D. W., & Li, L. K. (2007). Development of a partnering performance index (PPI) for construction projects in Hong Kong: a Delphi study. Construction Management and Economics, 25(12), 1219-1237.
Zhang P.H., & Ng, F.F. (2013). Explaining Knowledge-Sharing Intention in Construction Teams in Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(3), 280-293.
Zuo, J., Chan, A. P., Zhao, Z. Y., Zillante, G., & Xia, B. (2013). Supporting and impeding factors for
partnering in construction: a China study. Facilities, 31(11/12), 468-488.
Accuracy is a very common term used in describing the primary attribute required in construction cost estimates.
The use of the term accuracy in concert with a construction cost estimate is questionable is questionable at best but is sheer lunacy if the standard is the final construction cost!
Construction cost management, inclusive of repair, renovation, maintenance, etc., will continue to be elusive until the is a fundamental change in construction planning, procurement, and project delivery methods and processes, including the cost estimating approach.
The ONLY via method of estimating a project is to use a current, locally researched granular cost database with appropriate means and methods. That is a known standard/datum.