You might assume that real property owners are demonstrating competence and leadership and using proven collaborative construction delivery methods, tools, and information to drive improved outcomes.   You’d be wrong.

Why is the AECOO Sector Failing!*

*(architecture, engineering, construction, owner, operator/operation)

#1 – Lack of Owner Leadership/Competency in LEAN Collaborative Life-cycle Physical Asset Management

Education and expertise in the area of total cost of ownership management has been largely unavailable.   Architecture, engineering, construction, and even facilities management has traditionally been taught in silos.   Thus, it’s no surprise that practice has followed the same course.     Additionally total cost of ownership and life-cycle management processes are rarely taught and even more rarely taught and practiced.  Focus is largely upon first-costs and short-term horizons.   Even relationships among owners and service providers are largely transient, thus little knowledge and benefit is retained.   It’s almost as if value-add, to highly prized in all other sectors, is unheard of in the AECOO sector.

#2 –  Culture

The culture in the AECOO is one of mistrust, antagonistic and short-term relationships, and  lack of transparency.    Variation, something abhorred in most manufacturing sectors, seems to be the norm.   Also,  the sector is relatively technology adverse. Paper-based and spreadsheet-centric abound to this day. Open, cloud-based apps provide major benefits, yet are not being used to their fullest extent.

Collaboration, a fundamental element of success in any sector, is actually frowned upon by many AECOO traditionalists.   In point of fact, a culture of blame is prevalent

This behavior may also be magnified because the industry has often been managed using an aggressive style of management and a blame culture resides in it’s place.  Thus, early and ongoing communication, a requirement for project success, is a rarity.

BIM, was intended to resolve many of these issues, however, BIM was marketed by vendors as a 3D visualization tool in of an integration of LEAN processes with multiple domain-specific technologies and competencies.  Thus, BIM was destined to fail from its onset.

#3 – Lack of Robust Processes

While every construction renovation, repair, and new build project may be different, there is no reason for the processes to do so.  In fact, it is the lack of robust and consistent processes, as well as failure to leverage a common data environment (CDE), especially with regards to detailed tasks and costs, that is a root failure cause.

Collaborative construction delivery methods have existed for decades.   They readily allow disparate, multi-trade projects to be run within the same manner, across single and multiple locations, markets,  building types, and structures.    Integrated project delivery (IPD) for major new construction, and job order contracting (JOC) for repair, renovation, and minor new construction, are the most notable forms.   Both consistently delivery approximately 90% of project on-time, on-budget, and to everyone’s satisfaction, within an industry where traditional methods yield 20%.

While each repair, renovation, and new construction project is unique,  the processes should be consistent and repeatable.

#4 – Lack of Metrics and Control

The adage, “you can’t manage what you don’t measure” holds across the AECOO sector as well as any other.    Key performance indicators, (KPI’s), prevalent in every other sector, are rarely implemented.   This is not surprising, as LEAN construction procedures, of which KPI’s are a requisite elements, sporadically leveraged.   It seems to be accepted that a lack of control, failure to monitor contractor and subcontractor performance, quality, and attributes is the norm.

Moving Forward

Nonetheless, a select few, less than 5% of real property owners, have made the plunge and are actively progressing with LEAN collaborative construction methods and common data environments.    They are reaping the benefits of information-based decision-making.  They are meeting the challenges of reducing costs and negative environmental impacts.   They are indeed obtaining best value for their resource investments.   In short, they are obtaining higher quality outcomes for fewer dollars.

Change has always been problematic, however, failure to change is catastrophic.

Isn’t it time for your organization to accelerate the pace of change?

After all, making construction efficient is not rocket science.