Sustainability and Facilities Management in the Public Sector are critical issues from both environmental and economic perspectives.
Due to increasing concern about sustainability and productivity issues, there is a demand for public sector real property owners to significant boost productivity and overall stewardship of the built environment.
Any significant improvement, however, will require LEADERSHIP, COMMITMENT, CAPACITY, and ACCOUNTABILITY. More specifically, pervasive inefficient processes common the the Federal, State, County, and Governmenet sectors require fundamental change. Unfortunately, market context can reduce interest in innovative, yet proven solutions.
The integration and collaboration between all internal (0wner) and external (service provider) project parties, starting from the early phases of the building process is lacking and a fundametnal requirement for improving the ‘status quo’. Traditional planning, procurement, and project delivery methods and associate legal frameworks are not conducive to improving productivity and support fragmented, wasteful activities.
The current environment of autonomous units focusing on their own interests and incentives simply generates conflict and disputes and 80%+ of all projects being late, overbudget, or poorly completed, rather than collaboration and coordination which has proven to consistently deliver positive outcomes for all project participants.
Integrated planning, procurement, and project delivery models include but are not limited to Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Project Alliancing (PA), and LEAN Job Order Contracting, all of which enable collaborative partnerships and work mechanisms based on trust, robust processes, and a common, shared data environment.
These methods support project stakeholders in working according to a risk-and-reward sharing principle and boost performance-based process management. All project resource requirements, labor, material, equipment granular costs, productivity, and scheudle are available to all signatory parties.
- Alliance/Relationship based Construction Planning, Procurement, and Project Delivery
- Multi-party arrangement
- Integration operational goals of project participants/stakeholders
- Shared responsibility for planning, procurement, and project delivery
- Joint organization and management structure comprised of personnel from the services partner organization(s) and the owner.
- Joint decision-making and resource management
- Rewards are based on the overall project implementation and not on individual performance
IPD is ” project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and construction. (AIA, 2007)
Mandatory Requirements
#1 Owner leadership, capacity, commitment, and accountabilty to collaborative methodology
#2 Congruence with local conditions (current local market granular construction task and cost data)
#3 Collaborative decision-making
#4 Continous, transparent monitoring with respect to accountability, performance, and reliability
#5 Mutually beneficial outcome targets and performace-based and shared risk/reward
#6 Experienced Local Partners
#7 Integrated Design
#8 Early Partner Invovlement
#9 Mandatory Initial and Ongoing Training
#10 Use of robust framework for ALL Projects
Organizational Key Components1. Strategy, which determines the direction of the organization;
2. Structure, which determines the location of decision-making power;
3. Processes, which establish the flow of information and information
technologies;
4. Rewards, which influence the motivation of people to perform and address
organizational goals;
5. People, which influence and define employees’ mindsets and skills.” (2016, Galbraith)
References:
American Institute of Architecture, (2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, AIA National and AIA California Council, Sacramento, CA.
American Institute of Architecture and Associated General Contractors of America, California, (2010). Integrated Project Delivery: Case Studies, AIA National and AIA California Council, Sacramento, CA.
Cheng, R., Allison, M., Sturts-Dossick, C., Monson, C., Staub-French, S., and Poirier, E., (2016). “Motivation and Means: How and Why IPD and Lean Lead to Success.” Lean Construction Institute
Galbraith, J. R., (2016). The Star Model™.
Arditi, D., Nayak, S., and Damci A., (2017). “Effect of organizational culture on delay in construction,” International Journal of Project Management
Ballard G., Dilsworth B., Do D., Low W., Mobley J., Phillips P., Reed D., Sargent Z., Tillmann P., and Wood N., (2015). “How to Make Shared Risk & Reward Sustainable, ” Proc. 23rd Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Perth, Australia
Miller, J., Garvin, M., Ibbs, C., and Mahoney, S., (2000). “Toward a New Paradigm: Simultaneous Use of Multiple Project Delivery Methods,” Journal of Management in Engineering
Zaghloul, R., and Hartman, F., (2003). “Construction contracts: the cost of mistrust,” International Journal of Project Management